Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF PENSIONS

Disability Pensions

Mr. Turton: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he has now reconsidered the claim of Mr. E. Burgess, of Daggett House, Pickhill, to a disability pension in consequence of gunshot wounds received in the 1914–18 war, in the light of the report of a well-known Harrogate surgeon that his present incapacity is entirely due to his war wounds and is as great as if his leg had been amputated through the thigh.

The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Buchanan): I am glad to be able to inform the hon. Member that a grant of pension will be made in this case. Mr. Burgess is at present in a Ministry hospital, and when investigation of his condition has been completed I will write to the hon. Member.

Mr. Turton: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for that reply may I ask whether he can say from what date the award will take effect?

Mr. Buchanan: As the hon. Gentleman knows, this case has been the subject of argument between him and previous Ministers for, I think, about 12 years or something in that region. He would be a very clever man who could say on what date the award will commence.

Mr. Geoffrey Cooper: asked the Minister of Pensions whether the fixing

of the basic rate for 100 per cent. disability at 40s. per week on 6th December, 1919, was related to any particular industrial wage or group of wages or any other standard of income; and whether the prevailing rate of 45s. a week is so related.

Mr. Buchanan: I regret that there is nothing which I can usefully add to the answers which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Chertsey (Captain Marsden) on 18th November.

Mr. Cooper: Does not the Minister agree that the cost-of-living index figure is more in the nature of a measure of variation than a basis for assessment, and can he say what is the yardstick of income for this assessment? Has he any records in his Department which show how this figure was arrived at?

Mr. Buchanan: I have read fully the findings of the committees appointed to deal with this matter, and, frankly, I cannot make up my mind on what yard-stick the figure was computed. If I could, I would tell my hon. Friend.

Lord Willoughby de Eresby: asked the Minister of Pensions how many pensioners drawing a 100 per cent, disability pension are in receipt of a constant attendance allowance of 40s. per week and how many are in receipt of a constant attendance allowance of 20s. per week or less.

Mr. Buchanan: The approximate numbers at 30th September last were 420 and 4,200 respectively.

Lord Willoughby de Eresby: In view of the large difference between the two figures I would ask the hon. Gentleman whether he could consider altering the regulations or the Royal Warrant so it is possible to make graduated payments of between £1 and £2 to meet cases of individual hardship.

Mr. Buchanan: I think the House will agree with me generally that it is inadvisable to chop and change the Royal Warrant for little bits here and there. If I have to change the Royal Warrant, let the House and myself look at the Warrant in its general aspect so that we might not chop and change, but make general arrangements to make improvements on this point amongst others.

Lord Willoughby de Eresby: If the Royal Warrant is changed, will the hon. Gentleman consider this particular point sympathetically.

Mr. Buchanan: I will certainly look at it sympathetically.

Parents' Pensions

Mr. J. L. Williams: asked the Minister of Pensions whether consideration has been given to the Petition presented to this House, on 26th March last, on behalf of the Next-of-Kin of War Deceased Organisation of Scotland; and if steps are to be taken to compensate parents along the lines proposed in the Petition.

Mr. Buchanan: Since the Petition was presented, the claim that a flat rate pension should be granted to all parents who have suffered the loss of sons or daughters in the war was the subject of the Adjournment Debate in the House on 9th June, and both my predecessor and my Parliamentary Secretary have met representatives from the Next-of-Kin of War Deceased Organisation of Scotland and other organisations with similar aims. The Government, however, remain of the view that the present scheme, liberally interpreted, which takes account of need is preferable to a flat rate scheme which would ignore it.

Mr. Williams: Will not the Minister agree that while the great improvements are widely appreciated, this Petition commands a large volume of support?

Mr. Buchanan: All these are matters of finance. The whole question, as with other demands which are made on us, depends on which is the best way to spend State money. I have already indicated my views, and there the matter must remain.

Mr. Collins: Will not my hon. Friend agree that, however liberally this measure is interpreted, the maximum pension payable is £1 a week, and does not he think it should be increased?

Mr. Buchanan: I am prepared to meet Members from any quarter of the House to consider how far we can ease the situation. I have a very open mind on the subject, and I am prepared to consider any point which is brought before me.

Mr. Lipson: Will the Minister give an assurance that the scheme will be liberally

interpreted in practice, in granting pensions?

Mr. Buchanan: I think that during all the time I have been in office, I have shown my earnestness about liberal treatment in these matters.

Mr. Gallacher: s: Will the Minister reconsider this matter, in view of the fact that there are so many mothers in this country who have lost their sons and who feel that they are being completely forgotten by the Government? Does not he agree that it is undesirable to have forgotten mothers in the country, and that small weekly pensions collected at the post office, even if they are not in urgent need of them, would make a very big difference to their feelings?

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that what he is asked to do is not to redistribute the present amount of money on a different basis, but to persuade his colleagues in the Government to grant a small amount of extra money which would be necessary in order to apply in this war the principle which was applied in the last war?

Mr. Buchanan: First of all, I would like to correct the impression that I am a right hon. Gentleman. I am not averse to seeing whether the amount which we have to distribute to these people can be increased. The question which I would be prepared to discuss with hon. Members when the increased amount is allocated, is, what is the best way to make sure that the right people receive it?

Mr. Parkin: asked the Minister of Pensions if he will give an estimate of the approximate cost of disregarding the first 20s. of earnings in all cases when assessing parents' pensions.

Mr. Buchanan: I regret that a reliable estimate could not be made without a detailed examination of a very wide cross-section of varying types of case, numbering in all some 80,000. On a very broad survey of the position it looks as though the cost of the hon. Member's proposal would be somewhere round about £75,000 a year.

Mr. Parkin: In view of that very modest estimate, would not the Minister undertake this wide survey in order that we might have the facts before us of what it would cost to make these concessions.

Mr. Buchanan: I think that even if it were done my figure would not be found to be so far out. What the hon. Gentleman wishes is a figure to work on, and that represents a fairly good average estimate.

Mr. Parkin: Will my hon. Friend work on that figure?

Unemployability Supplement

Mr. Parkin: asked the Minister of Pensions if he will give an estimate of the approximate cost of increasing the unemployability supplement to the level of unemployment insurance benefit.

Mr. Buchanan: It is estimated that to give effect to the hon. Member's proposal would cost about £75,000 a year at the present time, rising to about £115,000 a year when the National Insurance Act, 1946, comes into operation.

Mr. Parkin: Does not the Minister think this is a very modest sum to pay to rectify this injustice?

Mr. Buchanan: I do not think the sum is extravagant. I never do.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Requisitioned Property, Germany

Mr. William Shepherd: asked the Secretary of State for War what recent inquiries he has made into the extent of military requisitioning of residential property in Germany; and what reduction there has been.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Shinwell): I have recently had inquiries made into both the policy for requisitioning residential property in the British zone of Germany and the application of the policy. The policy laid down is to restrict requisitioning of residential property to the barest minimum. This is achieved by accommodating units in barracks, as the strength of Rhine Army decreases, thereby releasing requisitioned residential property. Records are not maintained of residential as distinct from other properties under requisition. During the first six months of 1947 there was a net reduction of some 3,000 in the total number of properties of all kinds held on requisition by Rhine Army.

Mr. Shepherd: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the total number of properties held by the Rhine Army?

Mr. Shinwell: I cannot give the number, but they have been reduced.

Site, Grangemouth

Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchison: asked the Secretary of State for War when it is intended to clear the site at Wester Newlands Farm, Grangemouth, at present used as a dump for surplus Government stores, in order that this land may again be used for agricultural purposes.

Mr. Shinwell: This site may be required permanently for an Engineer Depot, in which case the requirement will be considered in due course by the Inter-Departmental Committee on Services Land Requirements. If it is not eventually retained, the date of clearance will depend on the availability of transport and I cannot at present make any forecast of how long it would take.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: Can the Minister tell us when the decision will be taken as to whether the camp is going to be required permanently or not?

Mr. Shinwell: We should have to wait for a report of this Committee.

Apprentice School (Scotland)

Sir William Darling: asked the Secretary of State for War if, in view of the fact there are four Army apprentice schools in the United Kingdom but none located in Scotland, he proposes to establish such a school there in the near future; and, if so, where.

Mr. Shinwell: Consideration has been given to the possibility of establishing in Scotland a fifth school for Army apprentices, but owing to shortage of manpower and accommodation, as well as the cost of the project, I regret that at present I see no prospect of carrying it out, at least for some considerable time.

Sir W. Darling: The Minister has in mind, of course, the mobilisation of the martial spirit of the Scottish people to an extent which I hope will not preclude him from considering this proposal in the future?

Mr. Shinwell: I am fully conscious of the desire of the Scottish people to help in this regard, but at the moment I cannot undertake this additional task.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: When the right hon. Gentleman has considered it, I hope favourably, will he also consider opening it himself as an Army apprentice?

Mr. Shinwell: The hon. and gallant Member seems to be unaware that I am already a full-blown craftsman.

Manpower Economy Committee (Interim Report)

Mr. Granville Sharp: asked the Secretary of State for War whether the Manpower Economy Committee have advised him how manpower economies may be achieved; in what way he has acted on the advice received; and whether he is satisfied with the results obtained.

Mr. Shinwell: This Committee has submitted a first interim report, which is under consideration.

Mr. A. R. W. Low: Was it as the result of information from this Committee that the right hon. Gentleman suggested on Sunday that the best way to economise on manpower was for the three Services to be combined?

Mr. Shinwell: I made a statement to that effect, but I never used the word "combine" in regard to the three Services, and I am not responsible for what appears in one or two newspapers.

Mr. Cooper: When the Minister is reviewing the matter of manpower will he take into account the 17,000-odd Polish Army forces still being kept in idleness by his Department?

Mr. Shinwell: There are never any persons kept in idleness for whom employment can be found.

Major Legge-Bourke: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an indication of what is in this interim Report?

Mr. Shinwell: Not without notice.

Uniform, Brigade of Guards

Lieut.-Colonel Kingsmill: asked the Secretary of State for War where the full dress uniform of the Brigade of Guards is stored; in what condition it is now; and how often it is examined and precautions taken against depreciation by moth, etc.

Mr. Shinwell: Full dress clothing for other ranks of the Brigade of Guards is stored at a Central Ordnance Sub-Depot.
The uniforms are in a serviceable condition. They are inspected as often as practicable and a complete inspection has just been finished.

Lieut.-Colonel Kingsmill: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that, at least in so far as the tunics and the blue serge trousers are concerned, they are the private property of the warrant officers, N.C.Os. and guardsmen concerned; whether his Department paid these people on their uniform being handed in, and if not what steps are being taken to pay them, or their next-of-kin?

Mr. Shinwell: s: I do not see any reference to these matters in the Question.

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: Is the Minister aware that every warrant officer, N.C.O. and guardsman had at least two suits of full dress, and very often three, which were their own personal property, on the declaration of war? Was a complete record kept of those who handed in more than one suit of full dress?

General Sir George Jeffreys: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind, when considering the question of dress of the Brigade of Guards, the question of officers' dress and the great difficulty of replacement if it should be taken into use again?

Mr. Shinwell: I am fully aware of the difficulties. The problem is not as simple as it appears to be.

Courts-Martial (Committee Report)

Mr. Manningham-Buller: asked the Secretary of State for War when it is expected that the Report of the Committee on Courts-Martial will be published.

Mr. Shinwell: It is not yet possible to say when this Committee will report.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any assurance that this report will be available in time for full consideration before the Army Bill comes to be considered? This Committee has been sitting a long time, has it not?

Mr. Shinwell: That is true, but there were, as the hon. and learned Gentleman is aware, some interim recommendations which were the subject of an announcement by my predecessor. We are trying to get on with this as speedily as we can.

Ordnance Depot, Biewster

Mr. Manningham-Buller: asked the Secretary of State for War what amount has been expended on the construction of the Ordnance Depot at Bicester since 1945; and what is the estimated future expenditure on construction.

Mr. Shinwell: Approximately £21,000 has been spent on new temporary works at this depot since October, 1945, and £163,000 on maintenance. What expenditure will be incurred in future cannot yet be accurately estimated.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that existing and old established Ordnance Depots, like that at Weedon are being fully utilised, and not left partly unused while this big depot is being expanded?

Mr. Shinwell: That is a matter to be considered in relation to the general reorganisation. I cannot pronounce upon that at present.

Service Land Requirements

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for War if he intends to proceed with the acquisition of 22,000 acres of land for a practical training area in Roxburghshire; if he is aware that this means a reduction of between 7,000 and 8,000 breeding ewes in this area; and if, in view of the food shortage, he will further consider the matter.

Mr. Shinwell: My Department already owns a considerable acreage of land in this area, and desires to acquire a further area, making a total of 21,500 acres for use as a practical training area for Regular and Territorial Army units in Scotland. It is premature to assume that the proposal will mean a reduction in stock, as discussions are at present proceeding with local authorities and other interested parties to ensure the minimum interference with grazing and other local interests. These discussions are a necessary preliminary to the final consideration of the proposal by the Inter-Departmental Committee on Services Land Requirements.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the Debate on Scottish Agriculture the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut. - Colonel Elliot) raised this question, and described

the Secretary of State as a powerful baron contemplating another clearance; and would he consider a strategic withdrawal from this area?

Mr. Shinwell: I read both speeches to which my hon. Friend refers, and also his own speech, and, quite frankly, I did not think much of them.

Lord William Scott: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is impossible to hand over large tracts of country to be used for training without interfering with stock?

Mr. Shinwell: We do our very best to avoid any undue disturbance of stock. We are fully conscious of agricultural requirements. All this matter is being considered just now, and I have been meeting interested parties—and will continue to meet them—in order to make some satisfactory arrangements.

Mr. Bing: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Services as a whole use 550,000 acres of land which were used for agriculture in 1938? As the War Office is the largest user, will he consider very seriously not taking any more land which can be used for agricultural purposes?

Mr. Shinwell: That is an over-simplification of this problem, it appears to me. We have either to train the Army or to leave it untrained. If this House decides that it must be trained with modern weapons in accordance with modern practice, then we have to provide the facilities. On the other hand, I am very anxious to avoid any disturbance of agricultural land. Some of my hon. Friends are aware, and hon. Members opposite are aware, that I have been trying to effect a satisfactory arrangement. I shall continue to do so. But if we have to train the Army, then, obviously, we must have the facilities.

Mr. Snadden: In view of the devastating losses already suffered by the Scottish sheep stocks in the past winter, can the right hon. Gentleman say if he has consulted with the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is appealing for the rebuilding of those stocks as quickly as possible?

Mr. Shinwell: Consultations are always taking place inter-Departmentally, as the hon. Gentleman must be aware. I must say this about the Scottish position; the amount of land required in Scotland is,


in proportion, very much below the amount of land we are seeking to acquire elsewhere, and my Welsh friends have suggested that, instead of acquiring too much land in Wales, we should turn our attention to Scotland.

Mr. H. D. Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that there is full consultation with the other Services to secure the most economical use of the areas taken?

Mr. Shinwell: There is always coordination, but one must beware of the use of the word "co-ordination."

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the great reputation that he acquired as Minister of Fuel is in danger of being lost now?

Mr. Shinwell: Such reputation as I possess I desire to retain, but I can assure my hon. Friend in all modesty that I apply, I hope, a practical mind to the consideration of these problems.

Mr. Vane: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the increasing dissatisfaction among the farming community in North Westmorland at his prolonged delay in arriving at a decision about the future of the 40,000 acres of land held by his Department, and known locally as the Warcop Ranges; and when a decision will be reached.

Mr. Shinwell: The future of these ranges is at present under discussion. I regret, however, that it is not likely to be possible to announce a final decision until the whole question of land required by my Department for this particular type of training has been settled.

Mr. Vane: Is the Minister aware that it is a very long time since an early decision was promised; that these ranges cover approximately one-tenth of the whole county; and that it is quite impossible for farmers to plan the stocking of this land if the present conditions continue?

Mr. Shinwell: I have already expressed my views about the use of agricultural land, which is to avoid such use as far as possible. The hon. Member is associated with the Territorial Forces, as he recently claimed, and, therefore, he should know a little better than his Question indicates.

Mr. Vane: asked the Secretary of State for War what consultations he is holding with local agricultural interests to ensure that the military use of the Warcop Ranges allows owners and farmers to maintain their sheep in a reasonably healthy condition; and to ensure that claims for damage to equipment or stock are promptly settled.

Mr. Shinwell: So far as I am aware, there have been no serious difficulties or complaints about the grazing of sheep over these ranges, and claims have been settled without unnecessary delay. Claims officers keep in touch with the County Agricultural Executive Committee.

Mr. Vane: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that local farming interests do not agree with his reply; that they are of the opinion that, if consultations were more close, they would be able to stock these ranges much better; and is he further aware that I was doing a Territorial exercise last week in another county, and that the brigade staff had made proper arrangements with the farmers concerned so that we could make full use of their land without in any way interfering with agriculture? Could not the same be done in this case?

Mr. Shinwell: I hope the Territorial exercise did the hon. Member some good, and will enable him to furnish me with the details on which his Question is based.

Mr. Drayson: asked the Secretary of State for War if he has considered a resolution sent to him by the Old Sedberghian Club in connection with the use of the Sedbergh Fells as a military training area; and if he has any statement to make.

Mr. Shinwell: As stated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 25th February last, efforts have been made to find an alternative area for the Martindale field firing range. Langdale Fell has been suggested by the local authorities, and a proposal to use this area is under consideration by the Inter-Departmental Committee on Services Land Requirements.

Huts (Heating)

Mr. Leslie: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that in a number of camps, where recruits are domiciled in damp huts, there are no fires


except on inspection day; and will he see that heating is provided during the winter months, so as to safeguard the health and welfare of young lads.

Mr. Shinwell: The solid fuel available to the Army is not sufficient to maintain the standard of heating of barrack rooms which is necessary. However, in present circumstances it is only right that the Army should exercise the greatest possible economies, in the same way as all other users of fuel.

Mr. Leslie: Does the Secretary of State think it right that on the day when a brigadier goes down to inspect a camp the fires are lit whereas they are not lit on other days? That happened at Shrewsbury.

Mr. Shinwell: I am not aware of this particular incident, but I accept what my hon. Friend says about it. I do know, however, after inspecting some of the barracks and huts, that heating arrangements are most unsatisfactory, and I am doing all that I can to have them put right.

Squadron-Leader Fleming: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in these damp camps there may be insufficient fuel to heat them, but that if the drainage systems were properly operated by the troops themselves it would help to make the camps less damp—if they were properly trenched?

Mr. Shinwell: The troops are very self-reliant in these matters and do adapt themselves to difficult circumstances. Nevertheless, the position is very bad.

Mr. Symonds: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have had this morning a letter from Heathfield Camp, Honiton, saying that in the recent cold spell the men woke up to find their boots frozen to the floors of the huts?

Mr. Shinwell: I will make the necessary inquiries in respect of that question, but I am very well aware of the facts, and I am disturbed about them.

Major Guy Lloyd: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the case of a camp he inspected a fortnight ago, where he commented on how cosy and warm the huts were, the fires were lit for the very first time that day, and that as soon as he had gone they were put out?

Mr. Shinwell: I commented in accordance with the circumstances, and no one would expect me to do otherwise. I am aware that sometimes they may put on a full dress show when some important person goes.

Mr. McGovern: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some officers have been saying to recruits who have complained, that there would be more coal if the late Minister of Fuel had provided more during his term of office?

Mr. Shinwell: That only proves that one discovers stupidity in circles other than those that are to be found in this place.

Married Quarters

Mr. Collins: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the large unsatisfied demand for married quarters, he will investigate the possibility of using for this purpose, suitable buildings, at present unoccupied, in camps which are controlled by his Department.

Mr. Shinwell: This is already being done in the form of Regular Families Hostels, which have been established for homeless Regular families returning from overseas and for the families of soldiers who are still serving overseas. All the accommodation which is at present empty is either so badly damaged as not to be habitable without considerable repair or is definitely set aside for troops due to return from abroad. Every effort is being made to recondition all the damaged accommodation, but lack of materials and labour is holding this up.

Commander Noble: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, in answering this Question, he has taken into account the large reductions in the armed Forces which he forecast last weekend?

Mr. Shinwell: s: We have forecast reductions in the size of the armed Forces for some time, but whatever the reductions may be, we still require more ample accommodation than we presently possess, and particularly for married personnel.

Major Legge-Bourke: Was the Minister's original reply made bearing in mind the cut in capital investment; and what alteration has been made in the amount of married quarters to be built?

Mr. Shinwell: This matter has nothing to do with any cut in capital investment.
For a long period of years the accommodation for the Army has been inadequate. It was inadequate when I was Financial Secretary, in 1929; it has been inadequate ever since; and as the strength of the Army has increased we find the position has become even more desperate.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRISONERS OF WAR

Compassionate Release

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Secretary of State for War what is th2 average time required to effect compassionate release for German prisoners of war in this country.

Mr. Shinwell: About one month elapses between the receipt of nominations by my Department and the arrival of the prisoner of war in Germany.

Post-free Parcels

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will make a statement about the make-up of and conditions attaching to the extra post-free parcels he is allowing prisoners of war to sent to Germany this Christmas.

Mr. Shinwell: The conditions attaching to the extra post-free parcel for Christmas are the same as those applying to the post-free parcel which a prisoner of war may send once every three months. The contents will be restricted to essential relief items such as rationed soap, toilet articles—other than shaving soap— clothing, medicines or similar articles. The parcel may contain also imperishable rationed food that may have been given to the prisoner of war. The same restrictions on individual items are imposed as in the case of parcels sent to Germany by members of the public.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether toys which prisoners have made for their own children can be included in these parcels.

Mr. Shinwell: Yes, Sir.

Entertainments (Participation)

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will rescind the regulation under which P.O.W's. are at present banned from participating in concerts or other entertainments where an admission charge is made and where money is to be raised

for some charitable, religious or relief objective.

Mr. Shinwell: No, Sir. It would not be fair for prisoners of war to entertain as artistes in direct competition with British civilians.

Oral Answers to Questions — TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING

Harlow Development Corporation

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning what is the cost of the salaries, office accommodation and administration of the Harlow Development Corporation, of 13, Grosvenor Square; and, in view of the fact that there will be no building for at least two years, why it was necessary to spend £11,500 to accommodate the general manager and his family, and to appoint a woman welfare officer at a salary of £1,200 a year.

The Minister of Town and Country Planning (Mr. Silkin): As to cost of salaries and administration, I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) on 11th November. As to accommodation, the Harlow Corporation share the Grosvenor Square premises with the other corporations. As to the figure of £11,500 mentioned in the Question, the hon. Member is quite wrong. The corporation have, with my consent, purchased a house and cottage at Harlow costing £6,500. Half of the house is let as a residence to the general manager, and half is used for board room and other office accommodation for the members of the corporation. The cottage is let to another member of the staff. I am satisfied that the salary being paid to the social development officer, who is, I assume, the officer the hon. Member has in mind, is commensurate with her qualifications and responsibilities. It is necessary now to staff the new town corporations with a few highly qualified and competent officers, so that the foundations for their future development may be soundly laid.

Sir W. Smithers: In View of the housing and labour shortages, how can the Minister justify such expenditure at this time of austerity; and why is a Ministry of the Crown setting such a bad example in not reducing expenditure?

Mr. Silkin: These particular premises were offered for sale, and the Corporation bought them with my consent.

Sir W. Smithers: Why does not the Minister put some families into them?

Mr. Silkin: I have done so.

Land (Services Requirements)

Brigadier Peto: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning when the undertaking given by the Prime Minister on 25th February, 1947, that no agricultural land will be involved by the requirements of the Services in respect of Braunton and Northam Burrows, will be implemented; and whether he will now state when the long promised White Paper will be issued.

Mr. Silkin: As indicated by the Prime Minister in the statement referred to, the land required by the War Department at Braunton Burrows and Northam Burrows is not agricultural. The answer to the last part of the Question is, "This week."

Brigadier Peto: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his answer is not in accordance with information I have received from the Clerk to the Devon County Council and the Clerk to the Barnstaple Rural District Council; that great dissatisfaction is caused throughout the country by the occupation of agricultural land; and will he take some steps at any rate to see that if it is not released it will be put under agriculture?

Mr. Silkin: I was not aware of the dissatisfaction mentioned in the first two parts of that supplementary question, but I will certainly deal with the third part.

Mr. Lambert: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning when the report of the public local inquiry into the land requirements of the Service Departments in the Dartmoor area is to be published.

Mr. Silkin: It is not proposed to publish the report referred to. I hope to be able to announce a decision in the near future.

Mr. Lambert: Is the Minister aware that there is considerable dissatisfaction when the Services continue to occupy land which apparently they have agreed to give

up; and can he say whether he will publish the report before Christmas?

Mr. Silkin: Well, probably not before Christmas. In any case, as I have already answered, it is not proposed to publish the report; that is not usual. However, the decision will be published as soon as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL INSURANCE

"Family Guide" (Publication)

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Minister of National Insurance how many copies of the "Family Guide to National Insurance" have been printed; how much paper was used; and what was the cost.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of National Insurance (Mr. Steele): This short guide is not yet in final form for printing, and I cannot at present say precisely how much paper it will require or what it will cost. I estimate that at least 14 million copies will be needed, since the Guide will be one of the principal means of informing some 25 to 30 million persons of their rights and obligations under the new insurance scheme.

Sir W. Smithers: Would it not have been better to have given the extra paper and some Government money to the ordinary newspapers and to have allowed them to do the job?

Mr. Watkins: Could my hon. Friend inform me whether this guide will be published in Welsh?

Mr. Steele: I could not say offhand. However, my hon. Friend knows the nationality of the Minister of National Insurance, and I am sure that so far as Wales is concerned we ought not to have any complaints.

Public Assistance Employees

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Minister of National Insurance whether it is intended that the new Assistance Board should absorb those employees of the Birmingham Corporation at present employed on outdoor assistance.

Mr. Steele: In common with redundant Public Assistance employees of other local authorities, those of Birmingham will be given the opportunity of applying for Civil Service appointments in the Assist


ance Board and the Ministry of National Insurance. Arrangements to this end are now being worked out in consultation with the various bodies concerned.

Mr. Wyatt: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the Birmingham Public Assistance Committee employs nearly 150 people, and has received no instructions or guidance whatever as to the future status and employment of any of those employees?

Mr. Steele: Negotiations are now proceeding with the local authorities, and by this Question and answer I hope to impress upon them that the matter is now fully under consideration. They will be informed as quickly as possible.

Mr. S. Silverman: My hon. Friend will, no doubt, bear in mind that the problem is not confined to Birmingham, and that a great many people up and down the country are waiting anxiously to see what the Government propose to do about it.

Mr. Steele: We estimate that there are 7,500 people employed by local authorities on public assistance. We feel that between 2,000 and 2,500 will remain with the local authorities; we hope that 1,500 will come to the new National Assistance Board; and the remainder will be offered positions with the Ministry of National Insurance.

Squadron-Leader Fleming: Is it the intention of His Majesty's Government to give any priority to municipal ex-employees over those people who have been employed by the friendly societies, some of whom are at present unemployed?

Mr. Steele: As far as those people are concerned, we carry no obligation, but it is understood that many people will be required, and if they register at their local employment exchanges they will be given an opportunity.

Unemployment Benefit

Mr. McGovern: asked the Minister of National Insurance if he will consider increasing the amount of the weekly allowances paid to unemployed men and women, as they bear no relation to the present cost of living.

Mr. Steele: Unemployment rates will be raised next summer, when the National Insurance Act is brought into operation.

Mr. McGovern: Is the Minister aware that we are now in the midst of winter? Is he further aware that the is now worth only about 12S., and, therefore, that the unemployed today are drawing less than at the beginning of the last war? In these circumstances, does not he consider it a matter of urgency that these rates should be raised by using the substantial funds already in existence?

Mr. Steele: The whole matter of subsistence and assistance was fully dealt with during the Second Reading Debate on the National Insurance Act. It was found then that it was undesirable to have any automatic adjustments so far as statutory benefit was concerned. I do not think it is generally appreciated that people on standard benefit can make application for unemployment assistance.

Mr. McGovern: asked the Minister of National Insurance if he will consider granting a rent and fuel allowance to all unemployed men and women, in addition to the present allowance.

Mr. Steele: Unemployment benefit is paid at fixed rates, but it is open to unemployed persons who are in need to apply for supplementation of their insurance benefit by way of unemployment assistance. This is intended to provide for fuel, as well as other normal needs, except rent. Rent is specially provided for by an addition to the appropriate scale rate.

Mr. McGovern: As this principle was recognised by the Assistance Board, will my hon. Friend ask the Minister to take into consideration the fact that although some unemployed men may be paying 7s. a week rent, others may be paying over £1? Is my hon. Friend aware that a revision of these rates to give allowance for rent, quite apart from unemployment assistance, is badly needed?

Mr. Steele: As far as the National Assistance Bill is concerned, it should be understood that the National Assistance Board will be looking at these regulations which will be come up for discussion before the Act is put into operation.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Silicosis Cases, Kent

Mr. John R. Thomas: asked the Minister of Labour what is the number of men and women registered as unemployed with the employment exchanges in the Dover constituency; and what proportion of these men are disabled miners suffering from silicosis.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): The numbers registered as unemployed on 10th November were 264 men and 58 women at Dover, and 85 men and 17 women at Deal. Thirty were registered disabled persons suffering from silicosis—28 at Dover, and two at Deal.

Mr. Thomas: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I must have some doubts about that figure, because there are hundreds of silicosis cases in my constituency, and these men could and should be absorbed into full employment.

Mr. Isaacs: If there is that number, then they have not registered. My answer is that there are 30 who have registered—that is 28 at Dover and two at Deal. If the others will take note of this Question and register themselves, I shall be glad to come to their assistance.

Directed Labour

Mr. Quintin Hogg: asked the Minister of Labour the date and terms of the agreement with the High Commissioner from Eire and the nature of the arrangements made thereunder for the purpose of effecting the direction of Eire citizens resident in this country.

Mr. Isaacs: In my reply to the hon. Member on 2nd December, I did not intend to convey the impression that there was an agreement. The arrangements which have been operated without objection, have been in force since 1942, when a letter was sent to the High Commissioner, from whom no comments were received.

Mr. Hogg: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the Question, which deals with the nature of the arrangements?

Mr. Isaacs: The nature of the arrangements here are the same as for other nationals resident here.

Mr. Hogg: Will the Minister tell the House for the first time what these arrangements are?

Mr. Isaacs: I am sorry if I misunderstood the Question. If it is the nature of the arrangements that is wanted, I will undertake to let the hon. Member have that information.

Mr. Emrys Roberts: asked the Minister of Labour whether any persons registering at local employment exchanges in Wales have been directed to, or placed in, employment outside Wales under the Control of Engagement Order.

Mr. Isaacs: Whilst I am not in a position to reply to the entire Question, I can say that no person registering for employment within Wales has been directed to work outside Wales.

Mr. Roberts: While the nature of my right hon. Friend's reply will give satisfaction, can he give an assurance that no person will be compulsorily transferred to employment outside Wales?

Mr. Isaacs: No, Sir, because there are some parts of Wales which so closely adjoin England that it may be easy to transfer a person to the other side of the street.

Mr. Hogg: asked the Minister of Labour whether Mr. Slim Dexter comes within any of the exemptions under paragraph 4 or 6 of S.R. & O., 2409 of 1947.

Mr. Isaacs: I have nothing to add to the answers I gave to the hon. Member on Thursday last.

Mr. Hogg: As the right hon. Gentleman then said that it may be that the gentleman in question was an excepted person under Article 4 (j), do I understand from that reply that he has some serious grounds for believing one of these very serious things is true about this particular man?

Mr. Isaacs: The hon. Member can put his own construction upon that, as upon other things which have been said.

Mr. Hogg: Was not the right hon. Gentleman inventing when he said that?

Mr. Gallacher: I should like to know whether Mr. Slim Dexter is in any way related to Mr. Henry Dubb.

Mr. Hogg: Was the right hon. Gentleman inventing in his answer?

Polish Workers, Engineering Industry

Sir Jocelyn Lucas: asked the Minister of Labour if the 1,000 Polish workers employed in the engineering industry, largely on making coal-cutting machinery, whose trade union cards were taken away from them last summer, have now had them restored; what result his negotiations and representations on the subject have had; and if he can yet state the reasons for this action.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Ness Edwards): Whilst I cannot confirm the numbers mentioned, there is no change in the situation. No agreement had been reached with the union as to the circumstances under which Polish labour should be introduced in the occupations with which they are concerned. I am still in communication with the union, with whom I have discussed certain suggestions which they have promised to consider.

Sir J. Lucas: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that I raised this question in July and August, that on each occasion I was promised an answer, and that the Minister has strongly deprecated the action of the unions? Surely, the unions take some notice of the Minister? What is the good of training these men for a job of work, if they are not allowed to do it?

Mr. Ness Edwards: Fourteen of the unions in the Engineering Federation have now agreed. Six are still considering the matter. The fact that there is no Pole unemployed because of the failure to get an agreement ought to be satisfactory to the House.

Mr. Osborne: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say which are the six unions concerned?

Mr. Ness Edwards: Not without notice.

Rotherhithe

Mr. Mellish: asked the Minister of Labour the numbers of unemployed signing on at the Brunel Road (Rotherhithe) Employment Exchange at the present time; and what were the comparative figures at the same Employment Exchange in 1936.

Mr. Isaacs: On 10th November, 1947, there were 181, and on 23rd November, 1936, 3,147.

Mr. Mellish: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that figures such as that are one of the reasons why the Labour Government retains the confidence of the vast majority of the people?

Vocational Training (Hairdressing)

Mr. Baker White: asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that an ex-Serviceman, Mr. T. W. Hall, of 33, Beltinge Avenue, Herne Bay, has been refused facilities to complete a course of hairdressing upon which he was engaged in a Government training centre up to the time that the course was closed down on 4th September, 1939; and if he can state the reason for this refusal.

Mr. Isaacs: Mr. Hall applied for a further course of training in hairdressing in November, 1946. As he had been employed as a hairdresser for five or six months after his release from the Army, his application was rejected on the grounds that he was not in need of a training course to obtain suitable employment. I learn however, that during the past year Mr. Hall has been unable to obtain hairdressing work, and it seems that his prospects would be improved by some further training. I am, therefore, arranging for Mr. Hall to join a hair dressing class which has already completed the earlier stages of training.

Grimethorpe Colliery Dispute (Report)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will now make available to hon. Members the report of the Fact-Finding Committee set up as a result of the Grimethorpe Colliery dispute.

Mr. Isaacs: I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for West Edinburgh (Lieut.-Colonel Hutchison) on 13th November.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, on the occasion to which he has referred, he stated that he knew that public opinion is much interested in this matter? Is there any reason, other than the desire to shield certain persons, why the House should not be given this information?

Mr. Isaacs: The hon. Member should not jump to such a conclusion.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Why not?

Mr. Isaacs: Because it is nonsense to do so. The answer I gave was that the report was not made to me. It was a private investigation made by the Mineworkers' Union, and I have no authority to order them to publish that report; it is a matter of domestic interest to them alone.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Since the Question was asked on 13th November, has the right hon. Gentleman asked the Union for permission to publish it?

Mr. Isaacs: No, Sir, and I do not intend to do so.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: As coal production is going up so magnificently, is not this Question completely frivolous and stupid?

Mr. David Griffiths: In view of the dismay of hon. Members opposite over the fact that coal production is increasing, is not my right hon. Friend aware that the less the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) says about the matter, the better it will be for all concerned.

Mr. Hogg: On a point of Order. Are these supplementary questions in Order?

Mr. Speaker: I often have very great difficulty over supplementary questions. I always recommend hon. Members to read page 336 of Erskine May.

Mr. Hogg: Having regard to the number of times that we have had that page referred to, may not it be read out to the House?

Mr. Speaker: I think that hon. Members can spend a little spare time in the Library reading it for themselves.

Disabled Persons

Mr. Watkins: asked the Minister of Labour how many persons are registered on the Disabled Persons Register; how many are employed and how many unemployed on the most recent convenient date.

Mr. Isaacs: The number of persons registered as disabled on 20th October, 1947, was 828,666; the number unemployed on 17th November was 74,646, of whom 10,655 were classified as severely disabled and needing sheltered employment. It is estimated from these figures that the number of registered disabled in employment is about 750,000.

Mr. H. D. Hughes: Can my right hon. Friend say what sanctions are being employed against employers who are not fulfilling their quota obligations, in view of the fact that there are over 70,000 of these people unemployed? Will he consider further sanctions if that step should prove to be necessary?

Mr. Osborne: Is it not true that the vast majority of employers are faithfully carrying out their obligations?

Mr. Isaacs: Perhaps the House will permit me to give a rather long reply on this point. Employers are, on the whole, carrying out their undertakings. We have conducted a survey, the results of which, I hope, it will be possible to present to the House. A great number of non-compliances have been due either to misunderstanding of the regulation or failure to see notices. Every individual case has been followed up, and I am sure that we shall see an improvement following the further survey. As I have said, however, employers generally are doing their best.

Mr. Chetwynd: Would my right hon. Friend consider increasing the quota, in view of the large number of unemployed, which has been constant for such a long time?

Mr. Isaacs: The figures are not constant. The personnel change from time to time. The question of increasing the quota has been considered, but we feel that it is best that those who are not yet taking part should take their share before the quota for those who are taking their share is increased.

Mr. Edward Evans: What is the attitude of the Civil Service Commissioners to disablement and deafness?

Mr. Isaacs: That is rather a different question, but the Civil Service quota is considerably above 3 per cent., and is in line with the best employers.

Building Trade Workers, Scotland

Mr. William Ross: asked the Minister of Labour if he will estimate the number of building trades workers who will be unemployed as the result of the proposed cuts in the Scottish housing programme; and how he proposes to absorb them into other industries.

Mr. Isaacs: No general unemployment of Scottish building workers is likely to arise in the immediate future as the result of implementing the recommendations made in the White Paper on Capital Investment in 1948.

Mr. Ross: Can my right hon. Friend make an estimate for a little beyond the immediate future? Is he aware that there is considerable concern in Scotland among building operatives at the prospect of such unemployment?

Mr. Isaacs: There ought not to be that feeling at the moment. It is impossible to look too far ahead, but there are now over 5,000 building vacancies in Scotland, 3,000 of which are in connection with housing schemes. There is still a lot of work for people there. Further, the Scottish hydro-electric schemes will shortly require an additional 5,000 building workers. There need not be any serious apprehension about the situation.

NATIONAL FINANCE P.A.Y.E. (Administration)

Mr. Sharp: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made in reducing the arrears of work in the administration of P.A.Y.E.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Stafford Cripps): Steady and substantial progress has been made. By April, 1948, the assessing work for 1944–45 and 1945–46 will be virtually completed and the assessing for 1946–47 will be well advanced in most areas and completed in many. The arrears of correspondence have been very much reduced.

Overseas Service Men (Parents' Remittances)

Mr. Sidney Shephard: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make an order permitting parents of Service men stationed overseas to remit small sums of money to their sons.

Sir S. Cripps: Inside the sterling area parents can send money gifts to serving sons by postal order, money order or through banking channels, but not by posting sterling notes. Outside the area the normal ban on money gifts, which is only lifted for cases of real hardship, applies, and we cannot spare foreign exchange to make an exception.

Mr. Shephard: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman reconsider this matter, as there is so little in the shops here for parents to buy and send to their sons? It is no use sending tobacco or cigarettes, as they can buy them cheaply in their own canteens. Will he not make an exception at Christmas time?

Sir S. Cripps: It is almost impossible to make an exception of that kind in this case.

Captain Marsden: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that people do not know the regulations, and that money is continually being confiscated? Will he also bear in mind that so far as the Navy is concerned the only address is, "C/o G.P.O., London"?

Sir S. Cripps: I appreciate that. We have taken steps to bring this matter to people's attention, and we shall take further steps.

Mr. Erroll: Will the Chancellor exercise some leniency with regard to the total confiscation which takes place at present?

Sir S. Cripps: We shall certainly consider that.

Exchange Control (Publicity)

Mr. Erroll: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much paid publicity was taken by his Department in the Manchester edition of the "Daily Mail" to publicise the total ban on sending sums of money abroad, which came into force on 1st October.

Sir S. Cripps: None, Sir, but I welcome the publicity given by the Press in general to exchange control requirements, and I take this opportunity of repeating that sterling notes found in the overseas posts, or brought to the ports in excess of the permitted £5, will be seized. We must stop these loopholes through which spending power may get abroad, or notes now abroad may be redeemed here for full value in cash or kind.

Mr. Erroll: While appreciating the need for strict currency control at present, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman pay special attention to cases where people have inadvertently transmitted notes through the post because they have not seen the notices in the daily newspapers?

Sir S. Cripps: We shall certainly take that into account.

Betting and Pool Transactions

Sir W. Darling: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider a plan by which all betting and pool transactions shall be made on an approved form bearing a revenue stamp as is required in bank cheques.

Sir S. Cripps: The method suggested by the hon. Member had already been considered before the form of the Pool Betting Duty in Clause 6 of the Finance Bill was decided on, and found to be less simple and equitable than a duty consisting of a percentage of the total receipts, which forms a graduated tax, more adapted to the existing systems of the pools and totalisators, and simpler to control.

Sir W. Darling: If it is less simple than the system of cheques, would the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider removing the poundage stamp on cheques?

Sir S. Cripps: The banks would not care for the tax to be paid direct by them.

Members of Parliament (Salaries)

Mr. McGovern: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the number of Scottish Members of Parliament who have refused to accept all or part of the recent increase in salary when it was raised from £600 to £1,000 per annum.

Sir S. Cripps: I cannot add to the particulars given in my reply to the hon. Member's Question on 18th November.

Mr. McGovern: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that Scotland is a separate country? That being so, does not his answer apply to Scotland in a different way?

Sir S. Cripps: No, Sir. I cannot disclose particulars, from whatever part of the world hon. Members may come.

Mrs. Jean Mann: Would not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it would be against all the best and well-founded traditions of Scotland for an hon. Member to take up this position?

Savings

Sir W. Darling: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is prepared to arrange a voluntary weekly contribution by workers for the purpose of providing for house purchase, marriage, furniture or other capital purposes, in order to encourage thrift now and property ownership in the future.

Sir S. Cripps: The National Savings Movement already provides full facilities for regular saving.

Sir W. Darling: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the form in which national savings are presented to the public does not encourage these excellent objects? Will he consider modifying or expanding the presentation of national savings, to put these attractive aims before the public?

Sir S. Cripps: If the hon. Member means the form of propaganda in connection with them, I have no doubt that the National Savings Movement will consider his suggestion.

Outstanding Tax

Sir Frank Sanderson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) the total net amount of Income Tax, Surtax, National Defence Contributions and Excess Profits Tax outstanding where agreement has been reached between the Inland Revenue authorities and the companies or individuals concerned, also what is the amount paid on account of such outstanding taxation by way of Tax Reserve Certificates;
(2) the total net amount of Income Tax, Profits Tax and Excess Profits Tax due and outstanding where the assessment or direction has become final and conclusive and after deducting the amount of Tax Reserve Certificates paid for.

Sir S. Cripps: I cannot give current figures of tax outstanding but of the £780 million Inland Revenue duties outstanding at the end of the accounting year 1945–6, it is estimated that £191 million was due and payable at that date and £589


million not due and payable by reason of the fact that the assessments were not finally determined. The total amount of Tax Reserve Certificates outstanding on 31st March, 1946, was £648 million; but it must be borne in mind that these may have been held not only against payment of arrears but also by other taxpayers not in arrear against payment of their current and future liabilities.

Sir F. Sanderson: Will the Chancellor agree that the estimated amount of tax payable for the year 1947–8 being £1,430 million reflects great credit on industry, and their determination to pay their taxes at the earliest possible moment?

Sir S. Cripps: We shall always be glad if they will pay a little quicker.

CIVIL SERVICE (NUMBERS)

Mr. De la Sère: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many civil servants there were on 1st September, 1939; how many were added during the war up to 1st September, 1945, when this Govern-

ment took office; and what was the total number employed on 1st December, 1947.

Sir S. Cripps: On 1st April, 1939—the latest available prewar return—the total number of non-industrial civil servants was 399,600. On 1st July, 1945—the last quarterly return before the change of Government—the corersponding number was 716,350. By 1st October, 1947—the last available return—numbers had been reduced to 690,600.

Mr. De la Bère: Is it not very desirable further to reduce this number, in view of the very undesirable practice of the direction of labour? Why not employ these people on really productive work?

Sir S. Cripps: Most of them are on productive work—productive administration.

Mr. De la Bère: Chaos and confusion.

NEW MEMBER SWORN

Right Honourable Malcolm Stewart McCorquodale, for the County of Surrey (Epsom Division).

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting,

from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. H. Morrison.]

The House divided: Ayes, 269; Noes, 103.

Division No. 43.]
AYES.
[3.32 p.m


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Field, Capt W J.
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Mann, Mrs. J


Alpass, J. H.
Follick, M.
Marquand, H. A


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Foot, M. M.
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George


Attewell, H. C.
Forman, J. C.
Medland, H. M.


Austin, H. Lewis
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Mellish, R. J.


Ayles, W H
Gallacher, W.
Middleton, Mrs. L.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Mikardo, Ian.


Acland, Sir R.
George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.


Bacon, Miss A.
Gibson, C. W.
Mitchison, G. R


Balfour, A.
Gilzean, A.
Monslow, W.


Barton, C
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Moody, A. S.


Battley, J. R.
Gooch, E G.
Morley, R.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Goodrich, H. E.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W)


Belcher, J. W.
Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)


Berry, H.
Grenfell, D. R.
Mort, D. L.


Beswick, F.
Grey, C. F.
Moyle, A


Bing, G. H C.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Murray, J. D.


Binns, J.
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Naylor, T. E.


Blackburn, A. R.
Gunter, R. J.
Neal, H. (Claycross)


Blenkinsop, A.
Guy, W. H.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby)


Blyton, W. R.
Haire, Johr E. (Wycombe)
Oldfield, W. H.


Boardman, H
Hall, Rt Hon. Glenvil
Oliver, G. H.


Bottomley, A. G.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Paget, R. T.


Bowden, Fig.-Offr. H. W.
Hardy, E. A.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Bowles, F G. (Nuneaton)
Harrison, J.
Palmer, A. M. F.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Parker, J.


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Haworth, J.
Parkin, B. T.


Bramall, E. A.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rusheliffe)


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Peart, T. F.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Hobson, C. R.
Perrins, W.


Buchanan, G.
Holman, P.
Piratin, P.


Burden, T. W.
House, G.
Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Howard, Hon. A.
Popplewell, E.


Byers, Frank
Hoy, J.
Porter, E (Warrington)


Callaghan, James
Hubbard, T.
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Carmichael, James
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Pritt, D. N.


Castle, Mrs B. A.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Proctor, W. T.


Champion, A. J.
Hughes, H, D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Pryde, D. J.


Chater, D
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Pursey, Cmdr. H


Chetwynd, G. R
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Randall, H. E.


Cluse, W. S.
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Ranger, J.


Cocks, F. S.
Isaacs, Rt Hon. G. A.
Rankin, J.


Coldrick, W.
Janner, B.
Rees-Williams, D. R.


Collindridge, F.
Jay, D. P. T.
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)
Jones, Rt. Hon. A C. (Shipley)
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Corvedale, Viscount
Jones, D T. (Hartlepool)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Cove, W. G.
Jones, P Asterley (Hitchin)
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Daggar, G
Kendall, W. D
Rogers, G. H R.


Daines, P
Kenyon, C.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Kinley, J
Royle, C.


Davies, Hadyn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Lang, G.
Sargood, R.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.
Scollan, T


Deer, G.
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Segal, Dr. S.


Delargy, H. J.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Shackleton, E. A. A


Diamond, J.
Leonard, W.
Sharp, Granville


Dodds, N. N.
Leslie, J. R.
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)


Driberg, T. E. N.
Lever, N. H.
Shurmer, P.


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Silkin, Rt. Hon L.


Dumpleton, C. W.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Durbin, E. F. M.
Lipson, D. L.
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.


Dye, S.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Skinnard, F. W.


Edelman, M.
Longden, F.
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bodwellty)
Lyne, A. W.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
McAdam, W.
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
McAllister, G.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)


Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
McGhee, H. G.
Snow, J. W.


Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
McGovern, J.
Solley, L. J.


Evans, John (Ogmore)
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)
Sorensen, R. W.


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
McKinlay, A S.
Soskice, Maj. Sir F.


Ewart, R.
Maclean, N. (Govan)
Sparks, J. A


Farthing, W. J.
McLeavy, F.
Stamford, W.


Fernyhough, E.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Steele, T.




Stross, Dr. B.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G
Wigg, George


Stubbs, A. E
Vernon, Maj. W. F
Wilkins, W. A.


Swingler, S.
Viant, S. P.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Symonds, A. L
Walker, G. H.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Taylor, H. B.(Mansfield)
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Taylor, R. J.(Morpeth)
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Taylor, Dr. S.(Barnet)
Warbey, W. N.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Thomas, D. E.(Aberdare)
Watkins, T. E.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Thomas, John R. (Dover)
Watson, W. M.
Woodburn, A.


Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)
Woods, G. S.


Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Wyatt, W.


Thurtle, Ernest
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)
Yates, V. F.


Tiffany, S.
Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.
Zilliacus, K.


Timmons, J.
Wheatley, J. T. (Edinburgh, E.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Titterington, M. F.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Mr. Simmons and


Tolley, L.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Mr. Richard Adams.




NOES.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon M.[...]


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Haughton, S. G
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.


Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Scot. Univ.)
Head, Brig. A. H.
Nutting, Anthony


Baldwin, A. E.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C
Osborne, C.


Barlow, Sir J.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Odey, G. W.


Beechman, N. A.
Hogg, Hon. Q
Peto, Brig. C. H. M


Bennett, Sir P.
Hutchison, LI-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Pickthorn, K


Birch, Nigel
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.


Bossom, A. C.
Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.


Bower, N.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Raikes, H. V.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Reid, Rt Hon J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Langford-Holt, J.
Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Ropner, Col. L.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Linstead, H. N.
Sanderson, Sir F.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Lloyd, Major Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Scott, Lord W.


Challen, C.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Shephard, S. (Newark)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Low, A. R. W.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Smithers, Sir W


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Snadden, W. M.


Crowder, Capt. John E.
McCallum, Maj. D.
Spence, H. R.


Cuthbert, W. N.
MacDonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Darling, Sir W. Y.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


De la Bere, R.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Digby, S. W.
MacLeod, J.
Sutcliffe, H.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Maopherson, N. (Dumfries)
Teeling, William


Dower, E. L G. (Caithness)
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.


Drayson, G. B.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Turton, R. H


Drewe, C.
Mar[...]den, Capt. A.
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Duncan, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (City of Lond.)
Medlicott, F.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Ecoles, D. M.
Mellor, Sir J.
York, C.


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Molson, A. H. E.
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T



Erroll, F. J.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Mr. Studholme and




Major Conant.


Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — NEW ZEALAND CONSTITUTION (AMENDMENT) BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment.

3.45 P.m.

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
I only wish to say how gratifying it was to all of us that there was such unanimity in our Debate on Second Reading yesterday. I hope that the people of New Zealand will see the Debates in both Houses of our Parliament, and will accept them as our tribute to their Dominion, as the expression of our deep affection for them and our recognition of the greatness of the ahievements of New Zealand under Parliamentary government, both in peace and war.

Mr. Mitchison: My own grandfather was in two New Zealand Governments, and I still have great interest in the country and would like to make one observation about New Zealand. I think my grandfather received from the last of the Maori chiefs who surrendered the jade object which represented his chieftainship, and which was given and received on the understanding that the Maoris should keep their rights in New Zealand. When I was in the country about a year ago, the Maori representative in the New Zealand Cabinet gave me a message of goodwill because I was an English Member of Parliament, and, I think I may add, an English Labour Member of Parliament, though at that time I said to him that I saw no prospect of ever delivering it. Perhaps I may say on this occassion that the relations between the Maoris and the people of New Zealand are a singular and noble instance of a conquered race living with their conquerors in amity and partnership, and that this fact does the greatest credit to both races and is one of the greatest achievements in the whole history of the British Commonwealth of Nations.

3.48 p.m.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: I only rise to say with what great regret I heard the hon. and learned Gentleman

opposite impart what has been completely absent from the Debates hitherto, and that is any question of party capital or party heat. Tributes have been paid on all sides of this House to New Zealand as a people and a race, irrespective of the particular party affiliations which may happen to be in force at the time, and I only want to say that, to those of us on this side of the House, the mere fact that New Zealand has a Government that is of a complexion to which, in this country, we should be opposed, makes no difference whatsoever to the affection and respect which we hold for that country.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

FINANCE BILL

Order for Third Reading read.

3.49 P.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
My task this afternoon is, I venture to think, an easy one, and it follows, I hope, that that of the right hon. Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley), who is to speak for the Opposition, will be equally light. The right hon. Gentleman has a very heavy Parliamentary programme before him this week, and if there is anything we can do to assist him from this side of the House, we shall be only too happy to do it. Common humanity demands it. I would also like, before going any further, to express to the House the apologies of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer for his inability to be present at this Debate. As I think the right hon. Gentleman who will follow me already knows, it is impossible for my right hon. and learned Friend to be here; otherwise, he would have certainly been on the Bench. It would, I think, be out of Order for me to go outside the provisions of this Bill on Third Reading, though I must say that certain observations of the Leader of the Opposition during last week-end do tempt me to do so.

Mr. Nigel Birch: Well, go on.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: It would be out of Order on Third Reading.

Mr. Birch: The right hon. Gentleman does not know he is out of Order until he is called to Order by the Chair.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: It would be unfair to the House to burden it once more with a recital of the effect of the various Clauses in the Bill. We have had fairly long Debates, and I think the terms and provisions of the Bill are well known to hon. Members in all quarters. We have, I think, managed adequately to discuss all its provisions in spite of the new procedure, and, with certain exceptions they have been accepted. I therefore intend to devote my attention to points and queries which, though they have been raised during our Debates, have perhaps not yet received a fully adequate reply.
First of all, interest on tax arrears. During the Committee stage on Clause 8 a request was made that a break-down should be given of the figures mentioned in the Third Report of the Public Accounts Committee for the Session 1946–47. The House will remember that the global figure given there is £780 million. This figure covers Income Tax, excluding P.A.Y.E., Surtax, National Defence Contribution and Excess Profits Tax outstanding at the end of the year 1945–46. It was built up as follows: Income Tax, excluding P.A.Y.E., £283,723,000; Surtax, £36,818,000; National Defence Contribution, £22,381,000; and Excess Profits Tax, £437,012,000.
As the Comptroller and Auditor-General pointed out in his Report, only about £150 million of the £437 million shown as carried forward under the heading of E.P.T. was in the hands of the Collection Branch, and of this nearly £43 million had not actually fallen due. I should mention, in order to get the sum as accurate as possible, that about £3 million was in the hands of the Assessments Division for collection. The true amount due and payable at that date in respect of E.P.T. was therefore £110 million. It will be observed that this is only about one quarter of the total mentioned as outstanding. It is, of course, a substantial sum, but not nearly as much as the general public were led to believe.
I think it is only right that we should make the actual figures quite

clear. We wish to do justice to the taxpayer from whom these amounts were due and to the Inland Revenue who might otherwise be thought not to be doing their job adequately.

Mr. I. J. Pitman: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that point—and we thank him very much for what he has said—I was interrupted at the moment and did not hear whether tax reserve certificates covered a substantial amount of that £110 million.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I intend to come to that but I thought I would clear up that one point first.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: That only applies to E.P.T. Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with the other taxes in the same way?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: As far as I can, but the figure for the rest will be a total. The reason is that the old Surtax and the National Defence Contribution are old taxes, and the amounts outstanding can more or less be said to be definite. The assessments have, for the most part, either been agreed to or abandoned. In addition to the £110 million, a further £81 million—this is the point the right hon. Member for West Bristol wishes me to deal with—was due and payable under the other headings of Income Tax, Surtax and N.D.C. This makes a total actually due of £191 million, which was the figure given by my right hon. and learned Friend in answer to the hon. Member for East Ealing (Sir F. Sanderson) early this afternoon. The balance of £589 million represents assessments which had not been finally determined and therefore the money cannot be said to be due.
I was further asked by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Pitman) whether in any event the tax reserve certificates issued did not cover the amount of tax outstanding. When he put the question, he was, I believe, thinking primarily of the £110 million, the figure then given as due under the heading of Excess Profits Tax. The answer is, as my right hon. and learned Friend indicated at Question time this afternoon, that the total of tax reserve certificates which were outstanding on 31st March, 1946, and which amounted to £648 million, cannot be linked up with the actual tax which was then outstanding. No doubt some of the certificates


had been taken out by people who owed the arrears, but quite a lot would have been taken out by people who were probably not in arrears at all, but who were simply investing in these certificates against a forward tax liability of one kind or another. I hope these details will rectify the very natural misunderstanding that has arisen in the public mind and will also do justice to the Inland Revenue.

Mr. Stanley: The right hon. Gentleman promised that he would try to give the figures for the amount of arrears of Income Tax which is attributable to the 100,000 outstanding claims on people owing under £1,000, which will not be touched by this Measure.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: It would be impossible for me to do that at this moment. We are thinking of the year 1945–46, which is a fair time ago. It is unfortunate, but under our system we can do no other. By now quite a lot of the money then outstanding has either been abandoned as not due, or has been actually paid by those from whom it was due. What we are doing now is to take the last completed year for which we have figures and to show, by reference to them, the kind of amounts that have been outstanding from year to year under these headings. If it is possible to break the figure down, I shall be very happy to do so, and to let the right hon. Gentleman know, either privately or by arrangement through a Question in the House. I should remind the House that the next report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General with more up-to-date figures should be out in the early part of next year.

Mr. Walter Fletcher: There is one question to which the right hon. Gentleman might give us the answer now that he is really attempting to give a clear and completely unprejudiced picture. We have never been told the anticipated yield of this tax. Secondly, in his opinion is the case originally put forward that there was considerable and unjustifiable delay, not now supported by the new figures he has given?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Unless I misunderstand the hon. Gentleman entirely, an estimated yield of a tax is always given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he opens his Budget in April.

Mr. W. Fletcher: I have here a quotation from the Chancellor of the Exchequer——

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I am sorry, but the estimate is given of the yield from the various taxes, and after the event figures are published which give the actual yield which has accrued.

Sir Arthur Salter: While fully realising that people who have taken tax certificates are not necessarily the people who are in arrears, is it not the case that what is in a sense owed by the taxpayer to the Treasury is only about one-third of what is owed the other way round, in the sense that they have already taken out tax certificates which have not been used?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Strictly speaking, there is no relation between the two. I only gave the figures for the tax reserve certificates outstanding, because I was invited to do so by the hon. Member for Bath and others, during the Debate on the Committee stage. I think the hon. Member for East Ealing was one of those who asked. The House is entitled to all this information, if it desires it. All sorts of people take out tax reserve certificates and they are not necessarily the same people who owe arrears of tax.

Sir Frank Sanderson: Am I not right in saying that tax reserve certificates can only be used for the purpose of paying taxes?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Yes, that is the purpose. I hope that nothing I have said would lead the House to believe that it was not so.

Mr. Pitman: Is not the situation this: that of the £191 million to which the £780 million has come down, namely £110 million for E.P.T. and £81 million for other taxes, an unknown proportion is covered by tax reserve certificates in the hands of those people who owe that money, but that we cannot say how much it is because we do not know?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I think that is a true statement of the case.
May I turn to sweets? During the Committee stage, there was criticism from the other side, of the proposal that sweets


should be divided into two categories, light and heavy, for the first time. In the course of the discussion I indicated that this was an innovation, and that my right hon. and learned Friend was quite willing to watch its effect, particularly as the industry itself felt that this was likely to be grave. We have no desire to destroy or injure the British wine industry. I also inferred I did not propose to tell the House why this change had been made, although there were good reasons for it. Perhaps I may be allowed to do so now.
Three kinds of wine are drunk in this country, foreign, Empire and home. Foreign wines are divided into two categories, the light up to 25 degrees proof spirit, the duty on which is now to be 22s. a gallon, and was previously 17s.; heavy, from 25 and 26 degrees up to 42 degrees proof spirit, on which the duty is now 44s. a gallon and was previously 34s. Empire wines are likewise divided into two categories, light up to 27 degrees proof spirit, upon which the duty is now to be 20s. a gallon and where it was previously 15s.; heavy, up to 42 degrees proof spirit on which the duty is to be 40s. a gallon whereas it was previously 30s. This differentiation between light and heavy corresponds to the distinction between table wines—such as claret and heavy wines such as port and sherry. However, British wines up to now have not had this classification. Before this supplementary Budget they were not divided in any way. The duty levied was a flat one of 14s. 6d. per gallon; although the majority of the wines produced by the British wine industry could be classed as heavy, as over 80 per cent. of them were of the port and sherry type.
With the decision in this Budget of an increase by 5s. and l0s. for these two categories respectively of foreign and Empire wines, about which I think no one in the House has had complaints to make, the question arose, what we should do when we came to the British wine industry? A 5s. increase, considering the nature of most of the output, seemed hardly sufficient, and Dos. might have been looked upon by many as too much and unjust. Therefore, it was decided to do what has already been done with foreign and Empire wines, that is to split them, roughly about the middle, into light

and heavy. I mention in passing that if we put 5s. on British wines and left them all under the same umbrella, they would have been paying 19s. 6d. under this Budget, whereas Empire wines of the same type, that is heavy, would have been paying 40s. Although we are anxious to give preference to the home industry, the difference between the two rates would have been too glaring.
I have re-read the Debates on this matter and have formed a view that the complaint is not against the division of British wines into light and heavy but because the British wine industry has not been allowed forthwith to fortify its wines in the way that Empire and foreign wines have long been able to do. My right hon. and learned Friend is quite willing to give sympathetic consideration to a proposal to allow the British wine industry to fortify in the same way as Empire wines are allowed to be fortified, but on the understanding that some difference will have to be made in the rate of duty levied. It is true that foreign and Empire wines are allowed to fortify their products, but they pay a much heavier duty than the British wine industry. If, between now and the opening of the next Budget, the British wine industry wishes to make representations to my right hon. and learned Friend on this matter, he will be willing to receive them and to treat sympathetically anything that they have to say. It is only fair to remind them that it would be next to impossible for him to leave the rate where it is as compared with that now levied on Empire wines.
The other criticisms of a major kind which have been levelled at the proposals in the Bill have been adequately, if not, so far as the Opposition is concerned, satisfactorily covered in our discussion. We had long Debates on the Profits Tax, and I have no desire now to waste the time of the House in going over the ground then covered. The proposal to disallow 50 per cent. of certain advertising expenses has been withdrawn in the light of the general assurance given on behalf of industry. I would like to pay a tribute to the hon. Member for Bath who was of great assistance in the negotiations that took place between my right hon. and learned Friend and industry in that matter. My right hon. and learned


Friend will watch what happens during the next month. He realises that industry is as desirous as all hon. Members that wasteful expenditure in this direction should be cut down, and it would be excellent if we could achieve on a voluntary basis what otherwise might have been imposed by force in this Bill.
One small and useful concession has been made on Purchase Tax, and I think that all of us who remember the long hours of boredom we spent——

Mr. Stanley: Boredom?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I found the long auctions, as I think they were called, as to what should or should not be included in this category or left out of it altogether, very boring. Except for those who were interested in some article on which they were anxious to see the tax adjusted, these hours were very dull.
The proposal to tax certain forms of betting has had a friendly reception, and it is interesting to consider what would have happened if such a suggestion had been made some years ago. Then the religious community would have been up in arms over the proposal, but now the only criticism we have had is that the tax does not go far enough. On the whole, the Bill has received a very smooth passage so far. In fact, yesterday it helped to set up what I believe is a record in brevity for this Parliament. I hope our proceedings this afternoon will be equally speedy. I commend the Bill to the House.

4.12 p.m.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: First of all, may I say that I, too, regret the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer from this concluding stage of the first Budget of which he has some control, but I know also the business upon which he is engaged and the fact that to some extent it was fixed, not to suit his convenience, but that of others. I can assure the Financial Secretary, however, that he is always an acceptable substitute, and I am particularly grateful to him for the desire he evinced this afternoon to make my task in replying to him easy for me. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that he always does so. With him it is not merely a matter of expressing a desire; he in fact always puts his desire into effect.
The right hon. Gentleman told us that it is with great difficulty that he resists the temptation to comment on a recent speech made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. We on this side also have our temptations. We shall resist them, though, with equal courage and determination. There is nothing I would like better this afternoon than to spend some time in discussing the modern meaning of the ancient phrase "sitting pretty," a phrase which in the old days meant a comfortable and assured resting place for one's anatomy, but which today means sitting on a slide, down which one is going to almost inevitable chaos. However, I must not be behind the right hon. Gentleman in putting Satan behind me, all the more because, if I did not do it myself you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, would do it for me. So I will confine myself entirely to certain aspects of the Bill, most of which, I agree, have already been discussed, and which therefore, need only brief comment.
I heard the Financial Secretary referring to some proposals for dealing with advertisements. I looked in the Bill which we are discussing, and found them still there. I do not know whether I should be in Order in pursuing that point, but all I can say is that I think nothing would more become those proposals than their omission from the Bill we now have to discuss.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): gather that the Bill as amended was not reprinted on the ground of economy.

Mr. Stanley: I understand the ground of economy. As the proposal is still within the Bill, shall I be in Order in discussing it?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Only to the extent of a passing reference.

Mr. Stanley: I think it has already been buried, and needs no further reference.
I wish to say a few words about the Purchase Tax. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer explained in dealing with this tax that as this was an emergency Budget he had decided to deal with it by categories and to adopt a different rate for each category, but not on this occasion to make any changes between categories. We on this side of the House accept that as a perfectly fair proposition in an emergency Budget. The right


hon. Gentleman must have noticed the self-denying ordinance we strictly observed, which prevented us raising any number of individual cases which hon. Members on all sides of the House are used to doing on an ordinary Budget occasion. But if we agree to this proposal for this emergency Budget, we feel that it should only be temporary, and that by the next Budget, in April, some consideration should be given to a real review of the categories, and all the various items which comprise them, because the very heavy increases in taxation which have taken place in this emergency Budget may well mean that certain items are now in categories which really make a very considerable burden for the consumer, and it may be necessary to make considerable changes on review. In any case, I think some review of the items under the Purchase Tax was due to be made.
I agree with the Financial Secretary in disliking—indeed, I have expressed my dislike before—the Dutch auction methods which on previous occasions have accompanied discussion of reviews of the Purchase Tax. I would not join for a moment with the Financial Secretary in saying that I was bored by that method, and I was surprised to hear him say it. He certainly concealed it, as always, when discussing the Purchase Tax at a very late hour, and his expression, when awake at all, was lively——

Mr. Bowles: He was bored when he was asleep.

Mr. Stanley: I think perhaps the expression of the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) is right; it was when he was asleep that he was bored. I hope that if we come to a stage again when we can contemplate reductions, we shall not go back to that system, which I think a bad system, and which never left any time for a scientific review of the incidence of the tax. The reduction of a particular item depended partly on luck, and partly on the eloquence and vociferousness of an hon. Member who happened to pick on a particular item. I hope that in the April Budget we shall be given a scientific review of the whole of the categories of the Purchase Tax, and shall be allowed to deal with it in a scientific manner.
I desire to say a word about the Betting Duty. I have tried to make it clear, and

I think it is a matter in which all my hon. Friends will agree with me, that I have no objection whatever to people who take their pleasure in gambling, bearing their share, at this time of inflationary danger, of the efforts we have to make to avoid it, but I think the question which must arise in the minds of all of us, when we view the proposals in this Budget, is whether these proposals are fair. We have, in other cases, quite rightly followed the principle that at a time like this it is fair to ask people to bear a heavy tax burden upon the particular pleasures which they select; but, in all other cases, we have, at any rate, tried to arrange that it falls equally upon all those who select that particular form of amusement. When we dealt with the tax on tobacco, we tried to make it fair as between the person who prefers a cigarette, a pipe or a cigar. We did not heavily tax one or two of them and leave the other completely free. The cigars of the Chancellor of the Exchequer are taxed just as heavily as my humble Player.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Why not a Woodbine? Why a Player?

Mr. Stanley: It happens that cigars are the Chancellor's choice; Players, not Woodbines, are mine. It is the same with drink. Whether it be beer, spirits or wines, we try to hold the balance level between the three.
It is, therefore, only for those who indulge in gambling that this selective process has been adopted, so that one may gamble tax free in one way but may only gamble in another way after paying tax. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in a previous speech, twitted me most agreeably on being disloyal to what he considered should be my primary interest of horse racing. I assure him that I can sense no disloyalty. My affection is not in any way diminished, my regard for Epsom, is, indeed, enhanced. In anything I have said, I have not been in the least against horse racing, but I am for fairness; I do want to make quite certain that in dealing with gambling in the way we are doing, we are doing it fairly, and what is more, doing it so that everyone concerned can see that it is fair.
In blaming me, the right hon. Gentleman attaches much too little importance to the influence upon my adolescent mind of the pronouncements of the previous


Chancellor of the Exchequer. I have heard that right hon. Gentleman standing at that Box, moralising in a way in which only he could do, and explaining how the particular form adopted in this Bill was not a question of impracticability—that might change—not a question of riot being worth while—that might alter—but was a question of natural justice, and what is something even beyond that, Labour Party justice. The right hon. Gentleman cannot blame me for feeling that really here was something upon which we should, have to look with the greatest caution.
I am not in the least against the tax in this Bill. I do not want, in point of fact, to tax anybody on this particular line. I have no moral desire to tax gamblers in order to reduce gambling, because whatever I may feel about the social dangers of excessive gambling, I very much doubt whether the wisest way to approach social dangers of that kind is by restrictive legislation. The right hon. Gentleman says "How different would have been the reception of these proposals some years ago." Yes, how different it would have been, but how different are the circumstances today. If we were not today in an inflationary danger which the right hon. Gentleman opposite at last admits, but which we believe to be greater and more imminent than anything that he has yet disclosed, if we were not in that danger now, our attitude today might well be what it was 20 years ago. But we are in that danger, and we are prepared to take whatever steps are necessary to meet it. We do ask, however, that those steps should be fair to all, and should depend more on justice than on a pure question of administrative simplicity and ease.
I have a word to say on the question of interest on overdue taxes. The history of this proposal has been a splendid example of arithmetical regression. Every time this subject has been mentioned in the House, the size of the problem, and the size of any effect to be created by these proposals has become less. It began with a reference in the Budget speech of the ex-Chancellor last April. There were no safeguarding provisions in that; the arrears then were due entirely to the unpatriotic action of the taxpayer, and instructions were to be given that they were to be chased by the Revenue authorities.
That left an impression on the minds of those who listened of vast sums in arrears merely because the taxpayer—and naturally, in this instance, the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, of course for reasons of prejudice, selected the Surtax payer to whom to refer—the Surtax payer was delaying payment, despite the calls of patriotism, merely for a selfish motive.
It was left like that until the same right hon. Gentleman's Budget speech in November. Then, it is true, an explanation was given, but the only figure quoted, and the figure which must have stayed in the minds of hon. Members who listened to it, and even more in the minds of the great outside public who read it, was the figure of £780 million. We now know that that has no relevance whatever to the real problem of arrears, that is, money which is due and payable, but which is still being retained by the taxpayer. That figure of £780 million has been whittled down on every occasion until now the amount with which this proposal deals must be very small indeed.
The right hon. Gentleman has today kindly given us some further elucidation, and according to him, if these figures are broken down, the £780 million becomes, in fact, £110 million of outstanding E.P.T. two years ago, and £81 million outstanding on the other three forms of taxes. As far as the future is concerned, E.P.T. is no longer of great interest. Gradually, no doubt, the sums outstanding will be paid off, but that particular tax has come to an end, and new arrears will not be created; therefore, nothing this Bill does will have any substantial effect on that part of the problem. We are then left merely with an arrears total of £81 million in all the other three forms of taxation— £81 million of genuine arrears on Income Tax, Surtax and National Defence Contribution.

Mr. Benson: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that E.P.T. arrears are not genuine arrears? If he looks into our tax accounts he will find it is because similar arrears have dragged on year after year that the 3 per cent. should be paid on E.P.T. arrears.

Mr. Stanley: I am not saying that it should not be paid on things outstanding. I am trying to see the real dimensions of the problem of the future which we must face. As E.P.T. has now ceased,


from now on we cannot be creating new arrears of E.P.T. The only new arrears which can arise are on the other three items already reduced to the sum of Or million——

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Profits Tax takes the place of E.P.T. As the years go on, arrears may pile up in respect of that.

Mr. Stanley: I am only trying to bring this thing into its real relationship. The main burden of the future is this £81 million which included the old N.D.C. We do not know how far that £81 million is further reduced by the amount of arrears which are attributable to small taxpayers under the £1,000 limit whom, in any case, this proposal will not touch. From some figures which the right hon. Gentlemen gave on a previous occasion of the number of people under that figure who are in arrears, it would seem that a very substantial portion of this £81 million will be attributable to them. Therefore, it will not be touched in any way by these proposals.
We on this side of the House have no objection whatever to interest being asked for on sums which are genuinely due to be paid. We do, however, object very much to the manner in which, over the last few months, this subject has been introduced. It was deliberately introduced in order to give the impression of vast sums being outstanding due to lack of patriotism on the part of the taxpayer. It is only after the greatest efforts on the part of my hon. Friends, only after a number of discussions and questions, that we have been able to show what a very small extent of arrears really exists and how trivial is to be the effect upon our national finances of this Clause.
We have discussed Profits Tax at considerable length, because it was the point in this Budget about which we on this side felt the greatest doubt. When we discussed this tax in the summer, I remember saying that it was not so much the amount of the Profits Tax then imposed which I regretted, but the danger for the future. Here was a tax which was a simple tax although, to my mind, it was a bad tax. Through its very simplicity it was likely to be the sort of tax on which any Chancellor of the Exchequer without any difficulty would always fall back. I did not realise how very soon my prophecy would become true. It is just because

this tax is so simple that it is also so bad. It is just because it has a simplicity which takes no account whatever of individual circumstances, that it is likely to be so unfair.
I will not go again over the particular points which we objected to in this emergency Budget which were not in the Budget of April—the doubling of the tax on undistributed profits and the retrospective nature of the provision. No doubt other hon. Members will deal with that. I want to point out the danger that I see from the easy acceptance of this tax. Glib arguments can be put up, no doubt, that under the particular circumstances of our economy today, this tax does not do the harm and does not have the ill-effects which might result in more ordinary circumstances. It is said that this tax is one which discourages venture capital and throws all its weight on the side of those people who take no risk; but today is a time when circumstances do not, for the present, make it necessary to attract capital of that kind.
These times will pass—at least we hope that they will. We hope that we are riot always to live in an era when people are neither encouraged nor allowed to take risks, when the whole emphasis is that in order to keep our export trade going we should plug along on the old safe lines which need no expensive new capital development and entail no risk of loss or failure. That may serve us for a short period, but if we continue on those lines for very long, it means inevitable death to the economy of this country and inevitable loss of export trade. Sooner or later, we must resume the practice which alone keeps industrial nations in the forefront of world trade, the practice of finding new methods, new products and new outlets for the inventive genius and industrial skill of our people. When that time comes, the existence of a tax which selects the venture money not for the ordinary treatment given to incomes, from wherever they are derived, but for special hard treatment, may well be found to be a severe handicap.
There is another factor, which again we hope will be temporary, and which obscures the dangers of this proposal. It is probably quite true that today, even with the additional Profits Tax, if a reputable company were to be allowed to go to the market for new capital, it would get it;


but that is due to a condition in the market which we hope will pass away. It is due to the fact that the investor is looking much less at the return he is likely to get under any equity investment than at the insurance that an equity investment gives him in the case of uncontrollable inflation in the future. Anyone who studies the course of the stock market, will see that it is far more influenced by factors which bear upon inflation or deflation than it is by factors which bear upon the profits either of individual companies or of companies as a whole.
The more accustomed we become to this tax, the more fearful I am of the effect that, sometime or other, it may have upon our economy. We have in the last two years seen a Chancellor of the Exchequer, in a time of rising inflation, putting into effect all the Keynesian remedies for a deflationary period. I am very much afraid that, if and when the danger of deflation should ever be the one we have to fear, it would be only those existing remedies which are, or are considered to be, popular with a certain section of the followers of right hon. Gentlemen opposite, which are not likely to be changed.
This Finance Bill is going to face a test which not all Finance Bills have to face. It will be judged not by the arguments which have been delivered during the course of its passage through the House, but by the events of the following months and years. Its object is designed, and rightly designed, to check inflation. If it fails in that, no words, not even of the most skilled dialectician among right hon. Gentlemen opposite, will mask its fate for events will surely disclose it. We have at different stages in the course of its passage expressed our doubts and fears as to the effectiveness of this and other Measures which are now being taken to meet a danger of which all of us must now be aware, and of which all of us in our hearts must be frightened. We have expressed these doubts and fears, but I believe I speak with sincerity on the part of every one who sits on these Benches behind me, when I say we shall be only too glad if it is found that our doubts and fears are unjustified, and that the nation will avoid the circumstances of a catastrophe whose effect upon all of us

and upon the general life of the people be over-estimated.

4.41 p.m.

Mr. Donovan: I want to raise a point of a general character in relation to this Bill, but before I do so, may I associate myself with the remarks which have been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) about the danger of raising taxes so high that they will have a discouraging effect upon enterprise in this country. I have seen at first hand that cause and effect operating, and what the right hon. Gentleman has said deserves the closest attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The point I want to raise comes from Clause 10 (2, d) of this Bill, which in my copy reads:
So far as it relates to income tax, the profits tax or excess profits tax, shall be construed as one with the Income Tax Acts, the enactments relating to the profits tax or the enactments relating to excess profits tax, as the case may be.
The meaning of that is that if I want to find out exactly what are my liabilities under this Bill, I have to look at every Act there specified, and there are 36 of them, beginning with the Income Tax Act, 1918. I assume that, strictly speaking, I should be in Order if I took each of those Acts one by one and Section by Section and went through them so that I might, as I am enjoined to do, construe this Bill as one with those 36 Acts. If I did that, I imagine I should be unpopular; I should certainly be very long; but that is what we are asking the taxpayers of this country to do tonight when we give this Bill its Third Reading. If the taxpayer does that and goes through the enactments relating to Income Tax and all the rest of it, not only does he find there are 36 Acts, but he finds that in parts of them the language used is completely unintelligible.
Tonight I am asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take the first step to put an end to this state of affairs. I ask him to reconstitute the Committee on the Codification and Simplification of the Income Tax. That Committee was set up in 1928 and reported in 1936, after eight years of work. It produced a Bill which to everybody, except a few persons in the Inland Revenue, appeared to be an extremely good Bill; but since then


nothing has happened. I suggest that we reconstitute the Committee and go on from that point. I do not believe it is so difficult a task as it sounds, but the sooner we get to work on this, although it will be perhaps a long task, the sooner we shall be out of this dreadful jungle of words. I ask the Chancellor to take some action on this before the next Budget, because if the next Finance Bill comes along, and nothing has been done, and we find, as we shall find, another Clause saying, "Read this Bill with 37 other Acts," we never know but that someone might get up in this House and insist on doing it.

4.45 P.m.

Lord Willoughby de Eresby: I should like to say a word about this Bill before it leaves the House. I suppose any increases in taxation are never pleasant or very welcome, but in so far as the provisions of this Bill make an attempt to deal with the problem of inflation, with one possible exception they have my support. My main criticism of the Bill is that the proposals are not drastic enough, and do not go far enough. The Government strike me as still fiddling, if I may so describe it, with this problem of inflation, and I think more drastic and more unpleasant measures will have to be taken before we can say we have successfully dealt with it.
I have always felt that the Finance Bill is really the best weapon which any Government has in directing our economic and social life. I say that in spite of the very elaborate centralised system of Government control which is being set up at the moment to deal with inflation by other methods. I am sorry that this Bill has not been used more effectively to deal with the problem of inflation. I also think that, for psychological reasons, this Bill does not go far enough, because it is not unusual in a democracy that a majority of the people, possibly because they have not had the advantage of going to the London School of Economics, are ahead of the Government in their realisation of the seriousness of our financial position and of the possible unpleasant remedies which will have to be taken. The Government have missed the psychological moment to bring us down to earth and

get us over the unpleasant things which I think still have to be done.
I pass from those general remarks to make a few particular remarks about the increase in the tax on undistributed profits. This Profits Tax, in my opinion, was a bad tax in its origin and it becomes even worse now that it has been increased. The arguments of the Financial Secretary in support of this increase were both misleading and on the whole unconvincing. The Financial Secretary no doubt will remember that he argued that this increase was necessary and desirable because certain forms of businesses had been using their reserves or undistributed profits to improve their offices and re-equip and modernise their plant and buildings. Such expenditure, he said, was both inflationary and antisocial at this particular moment in view of our serious financial position.
If that is true, what has the Minister of Works been doing all this while? The Financial Secretary knows perfectly well that no business or industry can improve its office accommodation or spend money on buildings without a permit or a licence of some kind. One can only say that, so far as the arguments of the Financial Secretary were valid, they are a complete indictment of the whole system of centralised Government control in these matters. Surely, we cannot blame ordinary businesses for wishing to improve their offices or to re-equip, and we should not punish them for doing so by increasing this taxation? Unless they did try to go forward in these matters, they would no doubt be castigated by the Lord President of the Council in one of his wittier moments for showing a lack of private enterprise.
In so far as money has been spent unnecessarily, I think that the Ministry of Works is far more to blame than the individual businesses concerned. In my view, money put to reserve by firms is, on the whole, invested in Government securities, or left in the banks. I would have thought that was definitely deflationary rather than inflationary. I am far more doubtful about what will happen to the £23 million, which we are told this increased tax will bring in, when it gets into the hands of the Treasury. I wish that the Financial Secretary had, as he described it, wearied the House a bit longer by telling us what he meant by


the rather curious term he used the other night about this money fructifying in the hands of the Treasury. I admit that money which is transferred from businesses to the Treasury need not necessarily be inflationary; it all depends how the money is spent. Far from money so transferred fructifying in the pockets of the Treasury, I would have thought it would have been far better if it had been sterilised and kept there, only to be used for some constructive purpose when the danger of inflation had passed, or unemployment had begun to appear. If it is now to be used for productive purposes, the effect will be inflationary rather than deflationary.
There is one other question I would like to put to the Financial Secretary in respect of the Profits Tax. What will be its effect on what are usually known as private or one-man companies? As he may know, a private or one-man company is between the devil and the deep blue sea. Presumably, it is still the wish of the Government that money or profits should be put to reserve, rather than distributed in the form of increased dividends. The Financial Secretary no doubt knows that if money is put to reserve, Treasury officials very often come along and say that a bigger distribution should be made. Last year, the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) gave an assurance that, provided profits of companies were not distributed in excess of the dividends that had been paid in the past, the money could be put to reserve. I hope that, on behalf of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Financial Secretary will tonight be able to give us the same verbal assurance as we had last year.
As the right hon. Gentleman knows; in the case of landed companies—which are the only ones with which I am personally acquainted—it has been quite impossible for the past six years to carry out much work of improvement on buildings, repairs, and so on, which everyone would have liked to do. As the Minister of Health—who I see is present—also knows, the longer this work is left, the greater the measure of deterioration, and the greater the ultimate cost will be. I believe it would be in the interests of everyone, and of the country as a whole, if reserves could be built up against these repairs

which seem to be deferred from one year to another. To repeat what I said at the beginning, I am sorry that, at this moment, the Government are not taking this opportunity to perform what one might describe as the major operation which will, sooner or later, have to be performed before our economy becomes stable once again and inflation has been effectively dealt with.

4.56 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Birch: I will start by saying that I fully agree with every word which my noble Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Lord Willoughby de Eresby) has said. I also agree with what was said by the hon. and learned Member for East Leicester (Mr. Donovan). I hope the Financial Secretary will take his words to heart, and that, if a committee is set up to consider the reform of the Income Tax Acts it will also go carefully into the incidence of P.A.Y.E. I and many of my hon. Friends are not convinced that the best method is now adopted. Both these matters might well be cleared up at the same time.
We have now reached the end of this Bill, and, speaking for myself, I find it much less enjoyable owing to the absence of the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton). He is an old friend across the House, and I think it is a poetic injustice that he should have disappeared through a trapdoor just at the moment when Nemesis was upon him. He would have many words to eat had he been here. I also regret that his departure has not had any effect upon this Bill. We have had the assurances of both right hon. Gentlemen that they are two minds with but a single thought, two hearts that beat—and sing—as one. That is a particularly depressing commentary on the present situation.
It would be tempting to go into the question of electric batteries again. There is something about electricity which confuses the Government. It is like alternating current; it goes back to where it starts from, and gets back there almost before it has started. With regard to the Purchase Tax, I thought the right hon. Gentleman took an odd line. He said that he was tired of listening to hon. Members on this side talking about things in which they were interested, rather as


if they had a financial interest in them. Let us take toothbrushes, which are subject to a tax of 50 per cent. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is wholly disinterested in toothbrushes.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: May I correct the hon. Gentleman? In the observation which I offered to the House, I was not only referring to hon. Members opposite on that matter. What I was trying to say—and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman who followed me in the Debate underlined what I said—was that these questions were raised by people interested in certain articles, but not financially interested.

Mr. Birch: I entirely accept the right hon. Gentleman's explanation. I am sorry if I misinterpreted him. I also agree with what my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) said about horses becoming overprivileged.
I want to say a few words on Clause 7, about the Profits Tax, and to go a little wider than did my noble Friend just now. I wholly agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bristol that this is a most dangerous tax. It is not only dangerous, but it is offensive in principle. It is offensive in principle, first, because it has been ante-dated, and, secondly, because it is capricious in its incidence. Adam Smith laid it down that that is one of the things a tax should never be. Whether people pay much of this tax or not depends entirely on whether they have a large amount of loan capital. General speaking, it is wholly undesirable that companies should be burdened with a large amount of loan capital. This tax specifically encourages the wrong distribution of capital. But the danger is the main point—much more serious, I think, than its offensiveness.
The best case against this Tax was made in April, 1946, by the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson). He talked such good sense upon the tax that I fear that may have been one of the reasons why he has not secured office. He made, in particular, the point that it is a tax upon activity. A tax upon activity is a serious matter when 80 per cent. of our industry is still in private hands. If we are going to get exports up and keep them up, I am quite certain that the main developments are going to be in new things. That has been so over the last 60 or 70 years. We have seen a steady decline

in the old staples, like cotton and coal, and a great increase in new things, such as artificial silk, gramophone records, radar and so on. However much money may fructify in the pockets of the right hon. Gentleman, I do not think the Treasury is likely to start any new businesses of this type, on which I am very certain we shall have to rely in the future to keep our place in the world.
The great thing about starting a new business is that a person is taking a risk. He may very often be wrong. One reason why a profit has to be made is that losses also are made, and they must be recouped. This taxation really amounts to a case of "Heads I win, tails you lose." That is what the Treasury says to a man starting a business. If he loses the whole of his capital, then it is lost, but if he makes a profit an enormous amount is taken away. It is not only a case of a 10 per cent. tax on undistributed profits, but Income Tax has also to be paid on all retained profits. That is equivalent to 10s. 1d. in the £, and on top of that, when ultimately distributed, Income Tax and Surtax must be paid. The effect must be that everyone plays safe. It is no use risking money unless there is some chance of getting something back. So that new developments are not only being blocked by physical controls, but also financially.
The right hon. Gentleman may very well say, how is the money to be raised if not in this particular way? He may also say that an increase in Income Tax, which in principle is more desirable, is impractical, because it has got to such a level now that it deters everybody in all income groups from putting forward their best. I think that is true. It shows where we have got to. We are running national expenditure now at a level which is absolutely certain to land us in inflation. The case has been put up many times that once national expenditure is much more than 25 per cent. of national income, it ends in inflation.
That has been happening. There is a depressing parallel between what is going on in this country and what went on in France between the wars. Not only was there inflation in France between the wars, and a loss in the value of the franc, but there was also industrial stagnation. In France, unlike all the other countries of


Western Europe and the New World, there was no rise in the standard of living between the wars. I feel that the effect of this type of taxation and the weight of expenditure will produce precisely the same results here. There will be a loss in the purchasing power of the pound, plus industrial stagnation. Hon. and right hon. Members opposite, perhaps unconsciously have relied completely on the past success of capitalism and do rely on its future success. If they are going to make the system unworkable and freeze it, they are taking a very heavy mortgage on the future. I feel we shall get to the stage where we are producing the wrong things, because people have not the incentive to go for the new things and our export trade will starve and our home production languish. Meanwhile, there will be a steady fall in the purchasing power of the pound with all the damaging social consequences that will result.

5.6 p.m.

Sir Peter Bennett: I intervene only because I was the Member who raised this question of arrears in taxation on the Committee stage, and I voiced the resentment of industry at the suggestion that they had been immoral and had taken advantage of the position. I also put in a plea for those over-worked people, the Inland Revenue group, who were not so slow in collecting taxes as might have been suggested by the arrears accumulated, compared with their prewar figure. The Financial Secretary has dealt with this matter today. I was not satisfied with his answers during the Debate in Committee. To suggest that we could get all the information from White Papers when the Press and radio had given out a figure of £780 million was a little bit far-fetched. The ordinary reading public does not study White Papers in order to find facts, nor can the Press be expected to look into them to get the right figures.
This £780 million, which we were told was outstanding, now comes down to £191 million. The figures, in comparison, are, therefore,£70 million prewar and £191 million today. I would remind the House that all taxation has gone up in the meantime. The Income Tax standard rate has risen from 5s. 6d. to 9s. Surtax has gone up, and we have had the new taxation on excess profits. Therefore, it would be

quite understandable that the amount overdue should go up. Anyone in business knows that if the turnover increases, the debtors increase also. The point I am making is that, quite apart from tax reserve certificates, the business public who have been censured should have been congratulated on the way in which they have helped in this matter. When the figure of £648 million subscribed for tax reserve certificates is put into the balance, it seems to me that a most gratuitous attack has been made on people who have been doing all they can to help the nation. I am glad the matter has been aired. I hope that as much publicity will be given to the Debate today as was given to that unfortunate remark which caused so much indignation and upset.

Sir A. Salter: Would it be considered a fair statement, taking the taxpayers as a whole, that they have voluntarily lent the Government three or four times as much as they have intentionally withheld?

Sir P. Bennett: I agree. The appeal was made, and the very way in which that appeal was answered showed that, instead of being censured, they ought to have been congratulated on the way they helped the Government. I want also to put forward once more the resentment we feel at the increase in the Profits Tax. I know we are in a period of inflation, and that industry today must put up with taxation with which it disagrees, but I tell the Government once more that they are playing with fire in imposing this Profits Tax. We hear suggestions that the division of profits is unequal, but we hear very little about the creation of them. As I have said before in this House, I am concerned, not with the cutting up of the cake, but with the creation of it, and making it bigger.
The Profits Tax will have a very bad effect. We live and exist as a nation by adventure. Here, we are doing all we can to clamp down adventure and to get people to play safe. We should not exist as a nation if we had played safe in the past. I do not know whether people realise the unique, peculiar position of the people of these little islands. I read the other day something that was written by a well-known economist. He said that if we took the population of Great Britain, those living south of the High-


land line, thus leaving out the North of Scotland, we had the densest population in the world. That did not surprise me, but he went on to say that if we took the rest of the population of the world and put it into the United States, that population would still be lower in density than the population of Great Britain south of the Highland line.
That statement staggered me. It only goes to show the truth of what I have been saying, that we in this island are a very unique people. We exist because of the adventure, forethought and initiative of our forefathers. If we lose those qualities, I do not like to think of the standard of living which will exist in this country in the future. My right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) made a certain statement during the week-end. I, for one, dare not contradict it. If we are not to have freedom to maintain the standard of living won for us by our forefathers, but are to damp down the spirit of adventure, kill the spirit of initiative and bring ourselves into a regulated State, we may well find that it will bring the ruin which has been foretold. That is why I wish to put upon record once more the fact of industry's intense dislike of the Profits Tax.

5.12 p.m.

Mr. S. N. Evans: The hon. Member for Edgbaston (Sir P. Bennett) speaks of the need for the spirit of adventure. I would agree with him. But what the Tory Party consistently fail to understand is psychology. The times in which we live are not normal. We are passing through a revolution which involves mainly the consent of, roughly, 20 million people who, in the ultimate, produce everything. The Tory Party seem consistently to ignore that fact. The Profits Tax is the result very largely of the irresponsibility shown by those whose political instrument the Tory Party has always been in a period of great national emergency. I do not propose to retail a long string of exorbitant increases in ordinary dividends since the end of the war, because I think the facts are well known to hon. Members on the other side of the House. If they had employed some of their arts of argument to damp down the exuberance for exorbitant dividends, the Profits Tax might not have had to be imposed.
We who go out into the country at the weekend explaining to the workers why, having won the war, Britain now finds it necessary to work harder than ever before, have been greatly hampered by the irresponsible and anti-social conduct shown by many boards of directors. The wisdom of the old English proverb, "It's an ill wind that blows no good," is well exemplified by recent events. Out of a political hanging for a blackout offence, has come the blessed nuptials of planned economy and financial policy, a union some of us had begun to despair of because of the play of politics. I hope that we shall now see finance revert to its rightful function, which is that of a lubricant facilitating the exploitation of raw materials, their fabrication into usable articles and commodities, and their eventual distribution to those who need them. I hope we shall not have any more interference with the process of making articles available to those who need them. It was the hegemony of finance that brought so many of our ills in the period between the wars. In the altered circumstances of our time the rôle of the Chancellor becomes that of a book-keeper to those responsible for economic planning.
It was right and proper that the interim Budget should have been brought in, although at one time I thought it was much ado about very little, as the lad from Stratford once neatly said. However, I am glad of the effect which the Budget will have in the workshops, and I regard the Profits Tax proposals as much the most important part of it. The psychological effect of the increased inroad into the cake, which is profit, will compensate for the added imposition upon ale, which is felt almost exclusively by the lower income group. Anything that creates the impression that the Government are bent on "fair do's among shipmates" is to be welcomed. It is not easy to create a sense of crisis in the mind of a chap who has £6 or £7 to pick up at the weekend and who is quite unable to understand the great national and international economic factors that are bedevilling national recovery. That fact may be put down very largely to lack of education in these matters in the period between the wars.
In speeding the progress of the Bill on its way to another place, I wish the new Chancellor the best of luck and, not least, good health. I do not for one moment


accept the inference of the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) that the President of the Board of Trade, the Minister of Supply, the Minister of Fuel and Power, and Uncle Tom Cobleigh and all, are now to become "Charlie McCarthys" to the Edgar Bergen of the Chancellor, but it is a fact that greater power is now concentrated in the hands of the Chancellor than has ever before fallen to the lot of a British statesman in peacetime.

Mr. Birch: What about the Prime Minister?

Mr. Evans: The Chancellor is a man of great intellect and of the highest integrity. It is right that he should speak in terms of deep draughts of Christian spirituality. I hope he will remember the effectiveness of an occasional draught of political spirituality. When leading an army over an uncharted "no man's land," with pitfalls at every turn, it is a good thing to have an occasional glance over one's shoulder to see that one is in touch with the main forces. Otherwise, one is likely to find oneself a general without an army, a most unpleasant and unhappy situation. We wish my right hon. and learned Friend well in the task which he has assumed, and if he pays regard to the concluding part of my speech, I am sure the national effort will be the better for it.

5.21 p.m.

Mr. Spearman: The hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans) has told us that he found some difficulty in encouraging the workers to produce their best because of the inflationary effect of the increase in dividend distributions.

Mr. S. N. Evans: I do not recall having said that at all.

Mr. Spearman: I naturally withdraw if I have misquoted the hon. Member. I am speaking from memory. I thought he said that, going round the country at weekends, encouraging the workers to produce more, he found the fact that boards of directors had increased dividend distribution so largely was having a very adverse effect psychologically on the people.

Mr. Evans: That is true.

Mr. Spearman: I wish to suggest two facts which might be taken into account. The first is that the proportion of money paid out in dividends is about 3 per cent. of the national income, whereas the amount paid out in wages is over 40 per cent. I am not quarrelling at all with that proportion; I am merely saying that, to get a fair perspective, the hon. Member should realise that the inflationary effect of increasing dividends is very small compared to the amount of wages paid.
The second point I wish to make is that up to now the shareholders, it may be quite rightly, have done pretty badly compared with the wage earner, bearing in mind the situation before the war. According to the "Economist" of 15th November, allowing for the rise in the cost of living, the wage earner is now getting 105 compared with 100 before the war, whereas the shareholder is getting 74 as compared with 100 before the war. That may be altered in the future by the removal of E.P.T., but up to now the shareholder has borne a considerable burden and his purchasing power is reduced a lot, whereas the wage earner's purchasing power has increased.
There have been several attacks on the Profits Tax, and I want to criticise it, not because it bears on the shareholders —I believe that in this crisis all sections of the community must bear their share of sacrifice—but because it is inequitable in the burden which it puts on some shareholders as compared with others, for reasons beyond their own control. I would like to give an illustration to emphasise my point. I will take as an example two companies, each of which earn and distribute £100,000. One company has £1 million preference shares and £1 million ordinary shares. The other has £1,500,000 preference shares and £500,000 ordinary shares. In the case of the first company, the shareholders used to get 5 per cent., and after this Profits Tax increase they get 2½ per cent; whereas in the case of the second company, the total profits of each being the same, the shareholders used to get 5 per cent, and now get nil. I do not see the fairness of one shareholder suffering so much more than another, for reasons over which he has no control.
The Financial Secretary told us that he was very satisfied with the easy passage that this Bill was having. I would sug-


gest that perhaps that easy passage is due not so much to the equity or the effectiveness of the proposals, as to their insignificance. When we heard there was to be an interim Budget I hoped that the financial policy of the last two years, which seemed to me to be so foolish and so damaging, was going to be repaired by a drastic Budget to deal with inflation. If in its conception this Budget is inadequate for that purpose, it may be that in its reception in this House we have seen the reason why. From the speeches of hon. Members opposite—I would make notable exception of the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson)—I do not believe there is any clear realisation of the gravity of the present situation; indeed, there appears to be no realisation that this country has no automatic right to live better than most other nations and do less work.
In judging how far this Budget will be successful in attacking inflation, I would like to examine the gains and losses involved if it succeeds or fails. The prize for success would be very great indeed. Not only would present supplies of food and necessary articles be ensured, because we would hold in check the ever threatening excess of domestic purchasing power which pulls goods into domestic consumption and so diminishes supplies for export, but by diverting men and materials from the luxury trades into the essential industries we should hope to increase supplies of those goods which we export and thereby ensure our ability to buy more goods which we need from abroad in future. Therefore, if this Budget should be a success in attacking inflation, not only should we consolidate our present rather perilous position but we should have prospects of a richer life in future.
If the prize of success is great, the price of failure is enormous. If inflation continues, it is quite clear that prices and costs will rise so that we shall no longer be able to sell abroad. We cannot always depend upon the easy sellers' market which we have had up to now. We shall not be able to buy the food and raw materials that we have got to have to maintain a decent standard of living. In addition, those things which we have got will not be fairly distributed. If there is to be an increase in the pressure against physical controls, if there should be less goods and a greater demand for them, I

do not believe those controls will stand up to that pressure. We shall find more and more goods escaping into the black market, so that we shall get a less fair distribution than there is at present.
The present situation, to use the hackneyed phrase, is "More money chasing less goods." That is in spite of the fact that we have been getting about £700 million worth of goods without paying for them because of our adverse balance, which itself is a by-product of inflation. Therefore, when we get rid of that adverse balance, unless we do it by increasing production, we shall face not the present inflationary position which is bad enough, but something infinitely worse. How will this Budget meet that situation? It proposes to do so by the saving of £48 million in the current year and £208 million in a full year, plus of course the saving of capital investment. It does not look to me as though that will add up to anything like enough to deal with the present situation.
Therefore, I criticise this Budget because it does not reduce the total demand for real resources within the limits of available supplies. I suggest to hon. Members opposite that by not facing this situation and by not facing these cuts which should be made in an orderly way, they will not avoid their being made. The only result will be that they will be made in a disorderly way, and therefore the burden will fall on those least able to bear it. I would suggest to hon. Members opposite that this Budget is trivial compared with what is needed and that we shall wish in a year's time that the Financial Secretary had had a more difficult Budget to pioneer through this House, because something altogether more drastic is needed to deal with this grave situation.

5.31 p.m.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: May I begin by saying how much I agree with what has been said by the hon. and learned Member for East Leicester (Mr. Donovan). No one is more qualified than he to speak about taxation matters, and I hope that his appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to do something about the codification of tax law will be heeded. On the third Reading of the last Finance Bill, I and the hon. and gallant Member for North Portsmouth (Major Bruce) pressed this point. I do not know whether


the right hon. Gentleman was bored on that occasion, but on this occasion at all events I hope he will be interested. The hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans), said that he thought of this Finance Bill as "Much ado about nothing." I feel the real comment to be made about it is "Very little ado about a great deal." In other words, in that sense it is a "phoney" Budget. If anyone thinks it is really going to preserve this country from the danger of inflation, that person is living in a fool's paradise, and in that sense the Budget is certainly "phoney." Its epitaph, like the epitaph of so many Measures by this Government, will be "Too little and too late."
The hon. Member for Wednesbury, in giving advice to the Chancellor, said that if one is leading an army over an uncharted minefield it is wise to look over one's shoulder from time to time. I would respectfully suggest to him that it would be singularly foolish to attempt to lead an army over an uncharted minefield and, furthermore, if one were leading an army into action it would also be very foolish to start looking over one's shoulder.

Mr. S. N. Evans: I did not use the term "minefield." I said an "uncharted no man's land'" and, in many ways, that is what we are having to navigate at the present time—an uncharted economic and financial "no man's land."

sMr. Lloyd: I will content myself by answering that time spent in reconnaissance is seldom in fact wasted, and if one is going forward to attack, it is not very wise to look over one's shoulder at the time. My general opinion on the Budget is that it will not be effective in avoiding the surgical operation which so many of us feel is necessary if this country is to be brought back to economic health. So far as the details are concerned, I do not think anyone can deny the necessity for the first three Clauses. With regard to the fifth Clause, dealing with Purchase Tax, again I do not think we deny that it is an appropriate method to attempt to deal with the evil. Clause 5 has been made much more palatable, at all events to me, by the Chancellor's undertaking to review and revise the Schedules and, if I may mention again the matter of drugs and medicines, may I once more

appeal to the right hon. Gentleman not to be bored about that, but to be interested and to see that something really is done about it between now and the next Finance Bill? With regard to Clause 6, again, I think, we mostly feel that is right in the present circumstances.
I want to say a word or two about Clause 8. This is an interim Budget and I should have thought that the first requirement of such a Budget was that its provisions should be short, simple and straightforward and in my submission this Clause is none of these things. I do not think we, on this side of the House, have any objection, in principle, to the view that those people who are long overdue with their tax payments should be made to pay some interest on the sums overdue. But it is quite wrong that a new departure like this should be made in an interim Budget, because it is obviously a matter which is going to affect the whole field of taxation. Such provisions need to be very carefully weighed and studied, and in this instance there has not been adequate time to study the provisions of this Clause. The undertakings which have been given have been very acceptable to hon. Members on this side of the House, but they have made me all the less happy about the actual wording of the Clause.
We are entitled to know what is the purpose of this Clause. Is it a penalty for wrong doing? If so, surely it is wrong to let a person off for the first three months and also wrong to let people off whose sums overdue are less than £1,000. If it is not a penalty for wrong doing, is it meant as an incentive for more prompt payment—I think myself that is really what it is meant to be. In that case, in view of the figures given today, is it really worth while? If it is meant to be an incentive, why should the taxpayer not be entitled to charge the interest he has paid against his profit and loss account? The contrary is the case so far as the Government are concerned, and I do not understand why the taxpayer should not be allowed to charge the interest paid against his profit and loss account.
Why is it not made clear in the Clause that when the State owes money to the taxpayer, the State will pay interest on the sum overdue? We have just been to some pains to pass a Bill dealing with proceedings against the Crown in order to put the Crown on a level with the


ordinary litigant. Here we have quite the contrary principle. There is to be one law for the rich and one for the poor, one law for the Treasury and one law for the taxpayer, and that is quite contrary to the idea implicit in the other Bill. The process seems to continue of the growth of power of the Executive at the expense of the subject and the taxpayer. This is just another example of that sad process. In my submission, this Clause is ill-drafted and complicated, and its intrinsic confusion is treble-confounded by the undertakings and promises given in regard to it.
I want to say a word about Clause 7. During the Third Reading discussion on the last Finance Act, I raised this point and had a certain discussion with the Chair about the "thin end of the wedge." The Ruling, eventually was that I might discuss the thin end, but not discuss the wedge itself. When I asked the right hon. Gentleman whether the Profits Tax was meant to be the thin end of the wedge, he gave no answer. We have an answer on this occasion. Quite clearly, it was the thin end of the wedge and equally clearly the wedge is growing in size. If my mathematics are right, the Profits Tax is 5s. in the £ on distributed profits and 2s. in the £on undistributed profits. The balance is subject to Income Tax at a rate of 9s. in the £, which means to say that out of the 15s. left of the of distributed' profits, a further 6s. 9d. goes in Income Tax, making a total of 11s.9d. Of the 18s, left on the undistributed £ a further 8s. 1d. goes in taxation, making a total of 10s. 1d.
If the State is going to be, in perpetuity, a sleeping partner in industry on those terms—that is to say, if industry is making a profit the State is to take those sums in respect of those two categories, but if industry makes losses the State pays not one penny towards those losses —then, I think, the situation is going to be extremely serious for the whole economy of the country. The consequences are two-fold. First, there is the question of incentive, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston (Sir P. Bennett) referred. If we are to survive, our industry has to be flexible. If we have this enormous proportion of profits taken by the State, our economy is not going to have flexibility; we are not going to have risks taken; we are not going to have new inventions developed; people

are not going to think it worth while to risk their money in undertaking such developments. It must be remembered that every one of our great industries has grown up from small beginnings, and that if we are to maintain ourselves as a great industrial nation we must make it possible for the small beginnings to be made from which new industries will grow. That is the first consequence negation of incentive.
The second consequence applies much more to old-established industries. It will deprive private enterprise of the resources with which to expand. It will deprive private industry of the resources with which to overcome bad times. I think it would be very much better if the House were clearly told the fact that these two consequences mean the destruction of the private enterprise system. It is a slow and lingering death, it is true; but it will be one that will be very painful for all concerned, including the wage earners. Let us be clear about it. Let us, to use a colloquialism, "cut the boloney", on this subject, and recognise that taxation of profits at this level will mean the end of the private enterprise system.

Mr. W. Fletcher: It is probably intended to.

Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend says it is probably intended to. If it is intended to do that, why not be honest about it and say openly what it is that the Government intend to do? It is sheer intellectual hypocrisy for the Government to say they mean to keep 80 per cent. of industry in private hands, and that they will give it its head and to do everything to encourage it, if, at the same time, they are enacting Measures of this sort. When I consider how much private industry will have to achieve in the very terrible situation in which the country finds itself, I am filled with horror at these proposals with regard to the Profits Tax.

5.42 p.m.

Mr. Walter Fletcher: I should like to refer first to the speech of the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans). The name of my constituency consists of the last two syllables of the name of his—Bury in Lancashire. That constituency is a working man's industrial constituency. When, therefore, I say that I do not at all agree with his analysis of the view that the man in the


factory is taking about the Profits Tax, I think I can speak with authority equal to his own in so saying. I believe that political education has advanced so far that the average working man does not in any way think along the narrow lines the hon. Member for Wednesbury has put forward—that it is a little bit to his advantage if something is against the shareholders. I think that the industrial efforts the working man is making at this moment in the hon. Member's constituency and in mine are not based at all on anything as narrow as that, but.that he is understanding, and is understanding more every day, the implications of the present crisis, and that he is not thinking on that very narrow class line.
I should like to back up the arguments that have been put forward as to the effect of the Profits Tax, but to consider it from another point of view, that of overseas development, which has not been mentioned. The great cushion which we had to fall back upon at the beginning of the war was the enormous amount—I think £3,000 million worth—of overseas investments which we had built up over a very long time. Those investments had been built up by private enterprise, by the taking of commercial risks—commercial risks that were well worth it. Private enterprise had built them up, not only in our own Empire but also in other countries. I think that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will bear me out when I say that at the present moment he is harassed the whole time by the Minister of Food and other procurement Ministers who want him to sanction demands on dollar and other hard currency countries for food and raw materials. Those large overseas investments have disappeared, and our earning capacity in hard currencies is not sufficient to meet the cost of what we need.
If we are to reverse that process and again to build up our overseas cushion of investments in other countries it must be worth while for private enterprise—which is still charged with 80 per cent. of the task—to do so. At the present moment that really does not hold good. I happen to be connected with an industry—the rubber industry—in Malaya and the Far East, where the future of that industry has got to be assured in a highly competitive sphere against synthetic rubber.
It may be rather a tender subject to mention at the present moment—if the Government will look up what the position is in rubber—because of recent events, which, no doubt, will come to a head soon, and the arrangements they have made for marketing, particularly in America.
Surely the wise thing would be to encourage, instead of discouraging, the extension of all such overseas enterprises. Indonesia is now looking, not only towards Holland, but to this country for investment and development, as I know from my own recent visits there. If the financial risk of development throughout the world is made so unattractive for the risk taker, we shall never again have the opportunity either to build up developments and investments abroad, in the way in which we are better qualified to do it than any other nation of the world, or to increase the real wealth of the amount of goods and food throughout the world. It is just at the present moment, when one is called upon to invest money in almost any country throughout the world, that the risk, owing to the burden of taxation, is an unattractive one, so long as companies and enterprises are centered in this country.
What is the effect? If we export some of the best exports we have to make from this country, some of our leading exports, brains, knowledge, energy and enterprise, we shall in the end have a great loss to this country; because once the line is severed between this country and incentive, once enterprise goes abroad, in the form of companies formed overseas, then this country disappears. The country will pay over the years out of that extremely valuable fund of enterprise; and all the extra employment and the extra benefits that come from all the ancillary enterprises of the companies leaving this country, will have gone altogether.
We all know that we have got to bear a burden of taxation, but there must be some relationship between that and the risk that is run. The present tax, particularly the tax on undistributed dividends is, I think, one that bears no such relationship. I hope that when the next Budget comes the Chancellor and the whole of his Department will examine these matters sympathetically. There is no doubt about it that they understand,


because they have been negotiating some very valuable treaties with other countries in avoidance of dual taxation. That is, however, only one aspect, and a minor one, of the vital question. We are taking another risk, and a very expensive one, in the low outside purchasing value of sterling. At this moment the call on private enterprise to go overseas is very great. Its place cannot be taken by the £150 million of the two Corporations the Government have formed. That bears no relationship to the value of our overseas resources developed by private enterprise in that period of the horrible time of Tory misrule. I hope that this aspect of the Profits Tax will be borne in mind.
I turn to Clause 8. During the previous Debate on this I achieved what I think is almost the impossible. I roused the Financial Secretary to a display of anger against myself. Both he and I seem to have recovered from that. Today he did not—because it would not have been in Order—move an Amendment, but he did the next best thing, and made an amende honorable; he did try to undo some of the harm that had been done by the former Chancellor. I should like to quote some of the words used by the former Chancellor in the Debate of 12th November. After he had mentioned the £780 million he said:
None the less, after taking all that into account, the total of genuine arrears is large, much larger than it ought to be.
That impression was false, and what the Financial Secretary did today—as was emphasised by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley)—was to take a very big step towards dissipating that wholly false impression, and to show how misleading was the former Chancellor in this matter. When the Chancellor was talking about the £1,000 level he said:
Where the tax due exceeds £1,000—we are not looking for ha'pence."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th November, 1947; Vol. 444, c. 402.]
Personally, I spend quite a lot of time looking for ha'pence and farthings. I find that is not only a profitable but also an extremely healthy exercise.

Mr. Scollan: It has not had a slimming effect.

Mr. Fletcher: I thought somebody would rise to that. We are not looking for hatred but what could show more

clearly the prejudice, and unjustified prejudice, which the former Chancellor was trying to create? Within a very short time the Solicitor-General was telling us in this House that there were 100,000 cases between the £300 and £1,000 mark, and did not rebut in any way the plea I put forward, that probably the amount to be gathered between £300 and £1,000 was greater than that above £1,000, although the Chancellor was not looking for ha'pence.
One satisfactory thing comes out of the Debate on Clause 8 for those who have claims against the Government where the Government are trying, very often in an unjustified way, not to pay them without procrastinating. What is sauce for the business goose must be sauce for the Government gander. Where it can be demonstrated—and I think it can in many cases—that the Government, by delaying action, are not standing up to their true liabilities, in future they will not be able to refuse to pay proper interest. To some extent, they have established a precedent in the 2½ per cent. paid on war damage claims in this country. I hope that precedent is well established. By the next Budget it will be quite clear whether this new system in Clause 8 is having the effect which everybody in this House desires, which is to make the man who unfairly withholds his taxation, pay up. If so, the logical conclusion must be to extend it, because that is only a matter of pure justice, of right and wrong. There is no doubt that it would help the smaller trader who is the one to come in, and whose interests we on this side of the House take particular care to look after. It would mean that he would have to go into a system of close bookkeeping and accounting, and would be able to keep his own accounts up to date under the pressure of this new Clause.
On the other hand, if this new system proves ineffective, and the rate has been neither increased nor decreased, then in the next Budget let us give it a decent burial as one of those attempts of the former Chancellor to use the Budget for the last purpose for which it should be used—the creation of party feeling and class separation. I believe that under the new set-up at the Treasury that outlook will disappear to a great extent, and the Budget will be used for the purpose for which it is intended. If there is one thing that is not necessary at the present


moment, it is the driving of a wedge between classes in this country. That the Budget, which is a financial instrument, should be used, or abused, for such a purpose was a scandal, which has been largely mitigated by the statement of the Financial Secretary today, and by the publicity which will no doubt be given to the bad precedent sought to be established, which I hope has now gone with the wind.

5.55 P.m.

Mr. James Hudson: I intervene for only a short time in an attempt to reply to the remarks of the hon. Member for Bury (Mr. W. Fletcher) about the implications of the Profits Tax and its influence, as he thinks, upon private enterprise; a point referred to also at some length by the hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd). I am extremely glad that the Profits Tax has been increased. Hon. Members may remember that in a previous Debate on the Finance Bill, I strongly advocated that a year ago we should have taken the step which my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) took when he introduced this Budget. I am glad it has been done because, contrary to the views of hon. Members opposite, I am quite sure that there is no likelihood of the call for greater labour, in the crisis which faces us, being met adequately if the mass of the workers feel that as a result of exerting their best efforts there would be, at the end of those increased efforts, only increased profits for the few.
As one who has listened for a long time to claims made on behalf of private enterprise, I have been struck by the claim made in the speeches today that it thinks of something other than making profits; that it thinks of the qualities of service involved in the industry it is conducting. In rotary clubs, in chambers of commerce—as well as from the benches opposite—we have listened to claims of that sort for a long time. If there was any substance in that claim for the merits of private enterprise, it should not matter if the private enterpriser loses his profit, or part of his profit —in the case of the present Finance Bill, to the extent of 25 per cent.; there should not be a disappearance of this desire to serve the community, which as we so often hear, private enterprise wishes to

exercise. The line taken by hon. Members opposite has simply stripped all that humbug off the claim so frequently made for private enterprise. Private enterprise is, at bottom, only a process of wringing profits out of industry for its own purposes; and if the profits go, the whole impulse by which private enterprise can be carried on goes also. If hon. Members opposite believe what they have preached tonight, I hope they will preach it openly and frankly in their constituencies, so that the working men to whom the hon. Member for Bury referred will understand clearly that that is their view.
At a time when working men are being appealed to, with some success, to forgo increases of wages, at a time when they are working harder, and are being asked to give additional labour—as,for example, recently, when they have been helping at weekends to get a quicker turn-round of railway wagons—if, in this national crisis, working men can be persuaded to labour altruistically for the community, then there is no case for those who seek to make profits out of the general efforts, and who seek to maintain those profits at the level to which they have been accustomed. If the Government had not taken some such step as has been taken in this Finance Bill, but had maintained profits at the old level, it would have been a great discouragement to those who matter most in the present situation, namely, those who are being called upon to work harder to help the nation through its difficulties. Mainly because the Government have introduced this provision, I am very well satisfied with this Finance Bill.

6.0 p.m.

Sir Arthur Salter: I had no intention to speak in this Debate, but I have been aroused by the hon. Member for West Ealing (Mr. J. Hudson), who has talked the most extraordinary nonsense about profits. It is not a fact that people who engage in private enterprise think they need do no work unless they get extravagant profits, or that they think of nothing but profits. The hon. Member must surely realise, however, if there is to be private enterprise at all, that when people are considering whether or not they will engage upon any particular form of enterprise, there must be a prospect of more gain than loss, or a greater prospect of gain than of loss. There must be that motive force.
The reason why a number of us are very anxious about this increase in the Profits Tax, particularly in regard to undistributed profits, is that whereas in the case of distributed profits the tax is obviously of a temporary character relating to the present emergency, and is obviously dis-inflationary, the tax on undistributed profits is not similarly, in its nature, a temporary tax; it is only too likely that having been started at one level, and then having been doubled, it may be retained and even increased. If that is so, it may make the working of private enterprise completely impossible. The one thing which is absolutely essential to the proper working of private enterprise, is that when those who are faced with a decision whether a particular enterprise should be undertaken or extended, after making their calculations and after having obtained the best expert advice, conclude that there is a substantially greater prospect of cleating wealth than of losing it, that they should have a financial inducement to undertake the venture.
But if we take the Profits Tax at the present level, bearing in mind the fact that behind it is the ordinary Income Tax and Surtax, the consequence may be—allowing a margin for risk—that unless the calculation shows that there are four times as much chance of making a gain than a loss, the decision may be not to undertake the venture. The Government are relying as to 80 per cent. of our economy on private enterprise, and to a larger percentage in the case of the export trade. If those who have to decide whether to extend their enterprise or not must say "No," unless the chance of making a profit is several times as great as the risk of a loss, it is perfectly obvious that over a large sphere private enterprise will not operate. That is why I feel very anxious about the inclusion of a higher taxation, not only on distributed profits, but on undistributed profits.
Many Members have said that the proposals in this Bill are insufficient to deal with the inflationary excess in the country, It is, of course, fair to say that they are not intended to, but are only introduced in order to deal with the increase in the inflationary excess which results from the recent measures undertaken in order to save dollars. It is obvious that even for that more modest objective the proposals are not sufficient. When we bear in mind also the great pre-existing inflationary

excesses which these proposals do not touch at all, most of us have come to the conclusion that it is not possible to solve this problem purely by taxation methods, but that a reduction in expenditure and a considerable increase in production will both be required if that position is to be remedied. That second condition is very relevant to the character of the proposals which are made in a Bill such as this. It immensely increases the importance of these measures being not only equitable as between different classes, but also being such as not to destroy or diminish incentive.
That is why I put such emphasis on the Profits Tax. Quite apart from the incentive condition, it is obviously essential that any proposals introduced should be fair as far as is possible, and although the ambit of this Bill is very limited and modest, it is perfectly clear that, in one measure after measure, ordinary decent treatment as between one class of taxpayer and another has not been provided in these proposals. Let us take as an example the provisions in regard to interest on arrears of taxation payments. I do not think I remember in this House such an extravagant original case being so reduced bit by bit until it obviously bears hardly any relationship to the case which was first brought before us. We have had the P700 million brought down——

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I think it is time that this matter was put in its proper perspective so that some justice might be done to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton). The figure of £750 million which has been bandied about was first put into the Report of the Public Accounts Committee. If anyone is to blame, then I think the collective blame should be borne by that Committee for using that figure without making it quite clear what it meant.

Sir A. Salter: The late Chancellor of the Exchequer, in using that figure as a basis for a new provision in the Finance Bill, should have explained exactly what was its import, how much it meant, and how much it did not mean. It has become clear now that the arrears represent a scarcely, if any, larger proportion of the total revenue than was customary and normal before the war. I believe that to be the case, and if that is so the case for a kind of punitive measure


in an emergency Finance Bill is very much less than we were originally led to believe. This provision for a 3 per cent. interest on arrears is, I suppose, partly intended as a punishment and partly intended as a prod. It is a novel provision in this country, and it has very few precedents. There is a precedent in the case of the United States, but there it works two ways. The American Treasury also pay interest on the amount they owe to the taxpayer. I think it is worth emphasising that it is in that respect unjust, in addition to injustice being done to the general body of taxpayers for the reasons already described by others today.
I will merely refer to, without repeating, what has been said about the tax on betting. It is obvious there that the Government have subordinated any question of fairness to the desire to adopt a system that is immediately easiest and simplest to administer, with a rather scandalous disregard of elementary justice. So I might go on to other parts of this Bill.
In conclusion, I would say this: it is quite clear that this makes only a very modest contribution to the general inflationary problem. It does not even adequately cover that addition to the inflationary excess which is being made by recent measures taken to save dollars. That deficiency in attaining that limited object is, in a large measure, due to some of the ways in which the Government have attempted to save dollars. For example, there is all the difference in the world between the way in which dollars are being saved by the recent increase in the tobacco tax—which was intended to save £7,500,000 worth of dollars, but is also bringing in £75 million revenue—and the method adopted in regard to the basic petrol ration, where about the same amount of dollar saving was aimed at—£7,500,000 worth, later raised, I believe, £9 million worth.
The latter has been done at the cost of actually losing revenue to the extent of at least £19 million and, therefore, adding to the inflationary excess to the extent of more than twice as much as the dollar savings aimed at. In that respect, I think the Government have introduced a measure which will give a little help in one direction, but which will cause so much trouble in another direction. It is doubtful whether, on purely financial

grounds, quite apart from the economic loss and the personal inconvenience, that step was, on balance, desirable. These are simply illustrations of my general view that this Bill, as a whole, is inadequate, that in many details it is undesirable in that it reduces or removes incentives, and that in other respects it is unjust as between one class of taxpayer and another.

6.14 p.m.

Mr. Benn Levy: Like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter), I had no intention of intervening in this Debate, but my motives in doing so have not been dissimilar from his. Although I hesitate to say, as he did rather discourteously, that I have been provoked to rise by the nonsense talked by the preceding speaker, I am bound to confess that what the right hon. Gentleman himself had to say struck me as at least fascinatingly remote from reality. His first argument, if I did not misunderstand him, was that the Profits Tax of 25 per cent. involved, as its corollary, private enterprise being required to be assured in advance that the chance of profit was four times as good as if the Profits Tax had not been imposed. It is difficult to believe that the senior Burgess really meant that. What the Profits Tax does is not to multiply the risk of loss by four; all it does is to reduce the profits actually made by one-quarter. Which is a completely different thing.
It is no good discussing the Profits Tax as though it were an Income Tax, or assuming that people will be deterred from making profits because they cannot make as much profit as they could have done without the Profits Tax.

Sir A. Salter: I said that one had to reckon that even if the risk was a good one, and the profit was made, there was still Income Tax and Surtax in the background.

Mr. Levy: I realise that there is Income Tax and Surtax in the background but this Clause which we are discussing increases the tax payable on retained profits by only 1s. in the £ and on distributed profits by 2s. 6d. in the £ To suggest that these slight additions will be serious deterrents to private enterprise seems to be wildly wide of the mark.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to repeat an error, which I had the pleasure of pointing out to him during the Committee stage. He argued, first of all, that the Profits Tax was a deterrent and a disincentive to industry and then, almost in the same breath, complained that it was not disinflationary. I repeat now what I said then, that it is essential that we should make up our minds whether we want to repel or attract money. If we want to repel money from the pursuit of capital goods—and the right hon. Gentleman was particularly emphatic on the question of the retained Profits Tax—it is no good pleading that this tax is a disincentive. On the other hand, if we want to attract money it is fair to complain that the tax is a disincentive. But to complain that the tax is disinflationary means that the right hon. Gentleman does not want to attract money to the pursuit of capital goods.

Sir A. Salter: My point was that, in the nature of the case, a tax of this kind, now increased, is very likely to remain as part of our taxation system. If that is so it would be very undesirable as a disincentive. As for the immediate disinflationary effect, I suggested that it was not necessary at this time because there were restrictions on raw materials and so on to deal with that particular question.

Mr. Levy: It appears that the right hon. Gentleman is not talking about this Budget at all. He is talking about a future Budget in which he vaguely apprehends that a tax, although right today, will be wrong at that time and will not be amended in future. I cannot follow him in this field of speculation. We are talking about this Budget, and I say that in the circumstances of this year's financial condition this tax is a good and valuable tax. Now that the right hon. Gentleman has reduced his objection to a mere apprehension that at some future date the tax will not be withdrawn, I think we can leave the argument safely where it is.
I should like, while I am on my feet, to mention one other Clause. When I came into the Chamber the hon. Member for Bury (Mr. W. Fletcher) was advancing a rather surprising argument on the subject of the interest which is to be levied on unpaid arrears of Income Tax. He described this proposal, which is designed to diminish wilful procrastina-

tion in the payment of taxation, as a piece of class legislation. I must say that the faces behind and beside him betrayed some dismay at the implication that it was a class habit to procrastinate in the payment of taxation, but we will let that pass. I have, however, some sympathy with his fears about this tax. The hon. Member expressed doubt as to whether it would reduce the very serious arrears which the Chancellor is trying to collect. I share that doubt, but for rather different reasons. A weakness of this Clause is that the phrase:
When the tax becomes due and payable,
which was ambiguous until it was explained by the Financial Secretary on the Committee stage, has now been explained in a manner which makes it very probable that the Clause will have no effect whatsoever. The explanation was-that interest would not be payable until agreement between the Commissioners and the taxpayers had been arrived at, It seems to me essential that, if the threat of interest payable is to have any effect, then it should be payable from the moment that the first assessment is made. This is not unfair. It is open to the taxpayer still to argue, and, in the event of his proving his case and securing a rebate, I can see no reason why the Treasury should not pay interest on that rebate. That would be perfectly fair, and I believe that is already done quite successfully in Australia. In other words, the parallel is the old Services one: Carry out the order first, and argue afterwards.
The disadvantages of not doing it in this way are very serious. First of all, it would provide a new incentive to arguefy interminably. By prolonging the controversy about a tax assessment, one will be escaping interest and payment. One serious result of this is that there is likely to be an enormous extension of cases which will have to be argued by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue who are already gravely overworked. It may be that the net effect of this tax will be to increase the burden—the already too heavy burden—on the Commissioners by providing an incentive for infinite appeals and for infinite argumentation, and, by the same token, it may fail in its effects. I hope, therefore, that the Financial Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will keep their eye on this point, in case it Should work out in the way I apprehend.

6.22 p.m.

Sir Waldron Smithers: As so often happens when one is called late in a Debate, many of the arguments which one had thought of have already been made. I would support wholeheartedly the speeches made by the hon. Member for Edgbaston (Sir P. Bennett), the hon. Member for Flint (Mr. Birch), the hon. Member for Bury (Mr. W. Fletcher), and, especially, the speech made by the senior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter). Their arguments were quite unanswerable. I do not, however, propose to follow the line of their speeches.
I want to raise an important constitutional point. I make the strongest protest against the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer from this Debate. The 'Chancellor is now economic and financial dictator of this country, and, already, we are seeing that his duties are so great that he cannot carry out his first duty, which is to be in his place in this House on the Third Reading of a Finance Bill. I would ask the Financial Secretary who is to reply to this Debate? Will he tell me now?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: That depends on the House. Later on, if hon. Members would like a brief reply, I intend to offer, by leave of the House, to give one. I think that the hon. Gentleman could not have been in the House when I spoke earlier.

Sir W. Smithers: I was.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: In that case I have nothing more to say.

Sir W. Smithers: I was terrified lest the Minister of Health was to reply. He was sitting on the Front Bench. If the Financial Secretary had told me that the Minister of Health was to reply, I intended to move the Adjournment of the Debate, pending the return of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I heard what the Financial Secretary said. I do not care what the Chancellor is doing; whether he is trying to appease Mr. Molotov, or whatever he is doing, it is his duty to be here. I want to have on record a strong protest by at least one hon. Member on this side of the House at the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not for the first time, because

on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill after he made his speech——

Mr. Deputy - Speaker (Sir Robert Young): The hon. Member has made his protest; he need not lengthen it.

Sir W. Smithers: I want to raise another point. I was not going to enlarge on that one. What the right hon. Gentleman did was to go out, and, therefore, he had no chance of speaking again. I was calling——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The attention of the House has been drawn to the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That will be reported to him. The hon. Member should now get to the contents of the Bill.

Sir W. Smithers: I was not enlarging on that point. I was asking why no reply was sent to a letter sent to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, asking him——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We are dealing with the Third Reading of the Bill, and not with letters to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Sir W. Smithers: In the letter were points raised on the Bill to which I could not get an answer. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer was speaking on the Second Reading on 17th November he said:
I should like to make one thing clear at the outset, and that is I was and am in full agreement with the proposals which my predecessor put forward in this Budget"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th November, 1947; Vol. 444, c. 932.]
Within a few days, he altered the Purchase Tax on electric batteries.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The matter of electric batteries has been taken out of the Bill. The hon. Member should confine himself to the contents of the Bill.

Sir W. Smithers: He also did away with advertisements tax. What confidence can we have in a Chancellor of the Exchequer who gives a definite statement like that one week, and changes his mind the next week?
There is one other point of constitutional importance which I wish to mention. That is with regard to the public money raised under this Bill. That money will have to be spent. I want to


know what position the new Economic Secretary to the Treasury holds in the expenditure of this money. It has been an age-long tradition in this country that no Department can spend money without Treasury consent, and now that we have the economic and financial direction of the country under one roof, I should be grateful for an answer as to whether Treasury control will still be strictly maintained over this combination of the economic and financial side of the workings of our country. Will that be relaxed? Will the Chancellor be able to say to his new Secretary: "You can spend that; you know that you have permission before you do so"? It is very important that Treasury control should be maintained.
This Bill, as has been said on several occasions, was primarily to stop inflation. It has done nothing of the kind. It marks another stage upon the road of disaster down which this Government is leading the country. I will conclude by quoting four lines of Rudyard Kipling:
All power, each tyrant, every mob
Whose head has grown too large,
Ends by destroying its own job
And works its own discharge.

6.30 p. m.

Mr. Attewell: A statement by an Opposition speaker was that this was a "phoney" Budget from the point of view of preventing inflation. I have listened very carefully, and I wonder what Clause in the Bill the Opposition would support as preventing inflation. I have no recollection that they support any particular Clause, with the exception of the increase in Purchase Tax. One Member of the Opposition made great play on the Profits Tax. If we do not have the Profits Tax as a method of preventing inflation, it appears to me that the tax must be on the only other source from which money comes into the market in considerable amounts, namely wages. Is it suggested by the Opposition when they plead for less expenditure that it should be less expenditure on the social services? If it is not wages which they want reduced to make this Budget a real Budget, what is the particular Clause they suggest?
I want to protest very sternly and strongly against the increase in Purchase Tax. I am aware that once a tax is placed upon a given commodity, it is

always difficult to remove it. The Opposition have used that as a reason for objecting to the Profits Tax. I am objecting to the Purchase Tax because it is unfair to thousands of ordinary men and women whose wages are less than the average wage shown in the Ministry of Labour Gazette. When we consider the thousands of people whose wage is less than £5 a week who have to pay the increase in Purchase Tax, this is tantamount to saying that the men and women receiving less than £5 per week are causing inflation, and are the reason for this interregnum Budget. When the mass of goods which are vitally important to the community are on coupons, or come under some other method of rationing, that should be sufficient to prevent a drain on those commodities. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer brings in his next Budget, I ask him to see that Purchase Tax is removed.

6.33 p.m.

Colonel Dower: I rise to make only one point. I appreciated that I have not been in the House for the whole of this Debate as I should have been, but I want to make a protest at the proposal to charge three per cent. on unpaid taxes. I do not object so much to the payment of this three per cent. on unpaid taxes, but it seems to be grossly unfair that when the Government hold money in the form of overpaid taxes, they can delay year after year without paying any interest at all. I have had a case brought to my notice. The case is one where the Government have not paid what has been due for a matter of three or four years, and it seems to me grossly unfair to have one law for the Government and their officials, and another law for ordinary individuals of this country. I cannot see any reason in that. It is for that reason that I hope the Financial Secretary, either now, though probably it is too late, or in the Budget next year, will right this wrong, because it is most ufair to have the law loaded in favour of the Executive, at the expense of the subject.

6.35 p.m.

Mr. Charles Williams: I hope my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Penrith and Cockermouth (Colonel Dower) will not expect me to follow his speech. I am not in any way quarrelling with it, but he has put the


matter so excellently that I feel it does not need any support on my part. I have had the great advantage this afternoon of having listened to a considerable number of speeches, which caused me to have an interest in a considerable number of points of view. The hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Attewell) rightly referred to the effect of the Purchase Tax on certain wages. That reminded me that I should be sadly neglecting my duty on this occasion, when we are increasing Purchase Tax very heavily, if I did not remind the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who at the moment represents the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that those who are going to fare worse than anyone getting £4 or £5 a week, are the people who are dependent on fixed incomes which they cannot increase at all. They will be in a very much worse position.
I was delighted to hear an unexpected speech earlier in the afternoon from the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Levy). I do not know whether that interesting speech will put the hon. Member at the top, or put him further down what my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) calls the queue. I should like, however, to suggest to him that we had a most excellent speech on the matter of profits from the hon. and learned Member for East Leicester (Mr. Donovan). It was a speech which almost anyone might read with advantage so far as profits are concerned. He only said a few words about the Profits Tax, but I think he was very much nearer to the wisdom of my hon. Friend the senior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter) than some other hon. Members who spoke.
I should also like some hon. Member opposite to tell me what was meant by the speech of the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans). I was completely unable to realise what he was talking about. He was giving advice pretty generally. First of all, he was advising the Conservative Party. I do not know anything about electioneering or anything of that sort, so I always accept with humility any advice for the Conservative Party. He then proceeded to advise the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he was crossing the uncharted seas of the no man's land of finance. I hope that that phrase and also the advice will

be reported to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because I feel it is most unfortunate that he is not here this afternoon to hear one of his most devoted followers offering him this advice.
If I might go on from that I would draw the attention of the Financial Secretary to one matter before I come to the other subjects which were dealt with by the hon. and learned Member for East Leicester. He drew our attention to Clause 10 and pointed out that if anyone had the time and industry to go into this fully, he could refer on this subject to something like 36, and after this Bill is passed 37, Acts. That supports the hope put strongly by several hon. Members that consideration will be given before next year's Budget to simplifying the Income Tax legislation. It would save a terrific lot of work and worry to the ordinary taxpayer.
Hon. Members must have been struck by the vast contrast between this House today towards the end of the Third Reading of the Finance Bill, and the éclat with which it was originally brought in. This Bill which was supposed to be the great work of this autumn to build up our finances, to stop inflation, to stop unnecessary expenditure, to stop our gold going out of the country and, generally speaking, to enable us to buy more food, has slowly faded away. The history of the Bill has been curious in many respects. It is probably the first time that a Finance Bill has had two Chancellors of the Exchequer—that in itself would give it some distinction—but the important thing is that the more we look at this Bill, the more we realise that it will have little or no effect in stopping inflation. The Clause dealing with Excess Profits Tax—I am not speaking of distributed profits but of profits going back into industry—will prevent industry developing, gaining and keeping export markets in the future. That is a matter of discouragement to industry. That is a main feature of the Budget about which many of us feel very strongly.
I would like to answer what was said by the. Financial Secretary in relation to Clause 9. He referred to the fact that this was the first Finance Bill going through all its stages under the new procedure. I would remind him that if we had the old procedure and if there had


been a proper discussion on the Report stage of the Budget Resolutions, we would not now be in the curious position of passing a Finance Bill which has in it a Clause which has already been withdrawn by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I know it is a matter of economy in printing, but I am pointing out these first fruits of bad procedure.
The hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers) and others have regretted the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Other comments have also been made about the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I hope that when addressing this House in future, he will remember that when proposals by the Opposition, just as with the Government, are accepted or rejected, it is not done as an accommodation, but because it is right or wrong. We are told that a change for the better in the Budget has been made to accommodate people but changes do not prevent, and never have prevented, a free House of Commons from making comments on them. I cannot find a Clause in the Budget—the Betting Tax or anything else—that can possibly be said to be constructive so far as industry is concerned. There is not a single Clause to help the development of trade and industry in any way. There are one or two Clauses which will be of vital interest to industry but this Budget which was to do so much to help us overcome the crisis, has now faded away into a poor, weak creature in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer takes little or no interest. The only real fact which has been elucidated is that it can do a great deal of harm.
I believe I once made a short speech—[Laughter.] Hon. Members laugh: I did once make a short speech, and I have reminded myself of what I said when we began the Budget Resolutions. Not having made a long speech—at least, not what I call a long speech—I would say that it is the truest definition of the Budget which has yet been given. Remembering everything that the party opposite said at the last Election and remembering the pledges given to us by the late Chancellor and the present Chancellor before the Budget, it can truly be said of this miserable Budget that it is the Budget that does not "face the future."

6.49 p. m.

Mr. Osborne: Having sat through most of the Debate and having heard many hon. Members say that they had no intention of speaking when they entered and then speaking and walking out, I am comforted by the thought that sometimes the last will be first and that it may be accounted to me for righteousness that I have sat through the Debate so far. This Bill is totally inadequate to the purposes for which it was brought forward. It is just useless. It will not help at all to solve the desperate economic situation with which we are faced. I believe the country is faced with the worst winter within living memory. This Bill was supposed to have been brought in to help us over our economic difficulties, but I do not think it will touch our problems at all.
Before I develop that, I would like to answer a point raised by the hon. Member for West Ealing (Mr. J. Hudson). He said that the arguments today had brought out the fact that the only motive in private enterprise was to squeeze as much profit out of industry as possible. That is just nonsense, and he must have known it. The motives in industry are much the same as the motives in politics in this House. They are mixed, and when he says that the men who are running industry have no other motive than to squeeze the last ounce of profit out of industry, he is talking the most dangerous nonsense in the world. I would remind even the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher), who at times shows signs of intelligence——

Mr. Stanley: When?

Mr. Osborne: When he goes off for meals—that examples like Port Sunlight and Bourneville, which have been established for over 50 years, give the lie to what is so often repeated by hon. Members opposite. The hon. Member for West Ealing also said that profits have increased enormously since the war. The increase in average dividends is not nearly so much as the increase in average wages during the last 10 years, and hon. Members ought to bear that in mind. The hon. Member for West Ealing sneered at the idea of making profits, but private enterprise cannot be continued unless it is making a profit. It is only nationalised industry which can do that, because it has the taxation of the country behind it.
The Bill itself is a terrible disappointment. The Chancellor was challenged on the Second Reading as to what the real purpose of the Bill was. He said:
Its purpose is to reduce the inflationary pressure consequent upon the economic action which is being taken by the Government, and thereby to enable the economic policy and the physical controls to be more effective."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th November, 1947; Vol 444, c. 1917.]
The real reason behind this Bill, according to the Chancellor, is not financial, it is physical and economic, and I hold that there is no provision whatever in it which will affect the economic position at all. The so-called reason for introducing it was that we have £1,000 million more purchasing power than the available goods, and I accuse His Majesty's Government of always tackling our economic position from the wrong end. Instead of trying to cut down the amount of purchasing power, why on earth do they not tackle the production problem and increase the amount of goods in circulation? That is the answer. This Chancellor and this Government have never tackled our economic problem properly. Why not leave the purchasing power in the hands of the public, and see that the goods are in the shops for them to purchase, instead of fooling, as this Government have been fooling, for two and a half years with the purchasing power and cutting down, and cutting down. They should learn to think in terms of expansion and greater output.

Mr. Holman: As in 1938?

Mr. Osborne: The hon. Member will not solve the problem of 1947 by chewing over the evils of 1938. He is like the Irish—it is time he got out of it. The only purpose of the Bill, according to the Chancellor, is to mop up the surplus spending money, but it will not help increased production one iota. I was hoping to catch the eye of Mr. Deputy-Speaker, Sir, while the Minister of Food was sitting here, for he will have the most terrible problem this winter to maintain our rations, and the only way will be by increased production. Tinkering with our finance will not touch it at all. It will not fill the housewives' shopping baskets, and it will not put more food on our tables. I accuse the Government of fail-

ing to face the economic position and the problems of the country, and playing almost at party politics——

Mr. Stanley: Almost!

Mr. Osborne: Yes, almost. The hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans) made this point. He said that this increased Profits Tax would have a good psychological effect upon the workmen; they would feel that by working harder they were producing more, but that the extra production benefit would be mopped up in tax and would go to His Majesty's Government. Therefore, he argued, they would work better and harder. I do not believe that for one moment. The average working man hates P.A.Y.E., and if he could get out of it he would do so. It is no comfort to him that someone else is paying more; what he wants is more food, more clothes and more coal. He wants greater production all round, and this Bill does nothing at all to help him.
The hon. Member for Wednesbury denied the idea that the increased Profits Tax would make the employer work not so hard and make him less enterprising. May I put this to the Financial Secretary, if I can have his ear for a moment? If a man in private enterprise is today reasonably successful and increases his profits, he gets a shilling or perhaps two shillings in the pound out of what he has made. If, on the other hand, he loses, he loses 20s. in the pound. There is no offset, and the betting against him is 20 to one. Why should he increase the size of his factory? Why should he build new factories? Why should he try to produce more when the odds are so heady against him?
The increased tax in Clause 7, in my opinion, will slow down the wheels of industry, which is the one thing we do not want, and it is an extremely bad tax. How much better, instead of the Government wasting time and fooling the country with a miserable little Bill like this, if they had made an appeal to both sides of industry to increase production as it has been increased in the last two or three weeks in steel, in coal and in transport? It would have been much better for everybody in the country if the time and energy of Ministers had been used in appealing for a greater turnover, rather than trying to take away our purchasing power.
I say that the Bill is inadequate. It is fooling with the terrible problem facing the country, and I regret that it has been brought in at all. Instead of playing with a reduction of purchasing power, whether from the worker through Purchase Tax or from the boss through increased Profits Tax, why should not the Government make an appeal to everybody in industry to work an extra hour a day without wages or profits for the good of the country? We would then be out of our economic jam so much more quickly than we shall be under this method. I regret the Government have brought in this Bill, and I wish to goodness they had used their time to better advantage.

7.0 p.m.

Sir William Darling: It is always a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne), who has such a sincere and lively mind, which quite obviously probes these problems and difficulties. I intend to detain the House only on one subject. I am concerned with the Profits Tax, and would like the Financial Secretary to consider if there be any worth or value in what I am about to say. The Budget is aimed at reducing inflationary pressure, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will consider the effect of the Profits Tax on certain businesses to which my attention has been drawn.
It has been suggested, perhaps not accurately, that some 25 per cent. of progressive businesses came into existence in the years 1935–37. They were started by men in their forties or fifties. These businesses, because of E.P.T., were not able to pile up any substantial capital. They have large turnovers, and, from a distributive point of view, they are successful. Their owners are now in the ages of 50 or 60. They have not been able to pile up capital profits because of the punitive character of wartime taxation. The Budget is to reduce inflationary pressure, and I suggest to the Financial Secretary that, if I am right in my analysis, the owners of some 20 to 25 per cent. of these businesses are finding the inducement to sell at a capital profit almost irresistible. He must be aware of the large number of businesses of that character which have changed hands, where the owners are unable to look forward to any substantial income, but can sell their businesses for substantial capital profit. That substantial capital profit

becomes an inflationary pressure, and produces in the minds of persons of 50 to 60 a reckless disposition by the fact that they are feeling that the sands of life are running out and they wish to get rid of their businesses for any advantage they may secure. Those people probably served in the 1914–18 war, and built up businesses in the intervening period, of which they made a considerable success. To put into their hands an instrument whereby they can sell those businesses will be to provide them with a very powerful inflationary weapon, which is likely to defeat the aims of the Budget.
My attention has been called to a company in the Midlands which was sold for £7 million. The effect of that is that persons who dispose of such businesses for capital profits create a further extension of the monopoly system, which we on this side of the House object to just as sincerely-as do hon. Members on the Government side. In the months between now and April the Chancellor of the Exchequer might well consider to what extent the present taxation of 15 per cent. in place of 7½per cent, on undistributed profits is tending to force persons to sell their businesses, and to what extent that tendency is creating a desire to secure capital profits at present. If it is found that it is due to the doubling of taxation on undistributed profits, I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will look into it. The trend is obvious to me, and, without much difficulty, I could give many examples to sup port my view.

7.4 P.m.

Mr. Drayson: I am glad of the opportunity of saying a few words before this Bill is given the Third Reading. I am sure the public are completely at a loss to know why it was ever introduced. Apart from a small tax on football pools and greyhound racing, and the fact that a number of Christmas presents they are trying to buy cost more, due to the increases in Purchase Tax, they can see practically no reason for it.
I wish to say a word or two about the much criticised tax on undistributed profits. There may be something to be said for an additional tax on distributed profits, because they go to swell the inflationary potential at the present time; but profits which are retained in a business are put to reserve for future development, and cannot possibly be considered to contribute in the same way.
Many industrialists will have to say to their workpeople, who for some time have been anxious to operate new and up-to-date machines, that they are no longer able to put in the new machinery which they would like, because the Socialist Government have imposed such a heavy tax on undistributed profits, and they can no longer contemplate schemes of modernisation which they had in mind.
In the textile industry, we know to our regret that a large amount of modern machinery is being exported to competitors abroad. No doubt that plays an important part in the present export drive, but we hope that orders placed now for modern machinery will be fulfilled in perhaps three or four years' time. Manufacturers are not able to tell us precisely what prices we shall have to pay for these machines when the delivery date arrives in three or four years' time. It is, therefore, essential that we should be able to build up large reserves for that date. I know that hon. Members opposite have mentioned this matter in their speeches. One hon. Member suggested that when a company had reserves in its balance sheet, there was a fruitful source of revenue for the Government, which should raid the reserves of industrial companies. I ask the Government to look further into the matter, and to consider that these reserves are being built up for a very definite purpose—to carry out development schemes, and to pay for imported machinery.
It should be borne in mind that, whereas it is true that profits have invariably increased with the general inflation through which we have gone in the last two years under the Socialist Government—they may have increased by 25 per cent. or 50 per cent. on the prewar figure—the cost of new machinery has in many instances doubled, or even trebled. If an additional tax is put on money which would be put to reserve, we are making it even more difficult for companies to put by the amount they would require. Some people think this is one of the many things demanded by the trade unions, and that they say, "We will not give greater output, nor encourage greater production, unless an additional tax is put on profits."
This word "profits," under the Socialist administration, seems to have some sinister meaning. It is almost a

virtue nowadays to make a loss, because the Government realise that all their nationalised industries will be run at a loss. The Government have to change the whole outlook of the general public, and to make them believe that if the nationalised industries are run at a loss, there is some virtue in it, because the taxpayer will have to pay. But this will act as a boomerang when we have to tell people in industry, faced with competition from abroad, that we could have had in our mills the modern machines we are now exporting if only we had been able to put to reserve money to pay out for them, but which the Chancellor of the Exchequer taxed as undistributed profits. In any case, this is only a temporary Measure, and I hope we may look forward to a reduction in this tax in the April Budget.

7.9 p.m.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I can only speak again, Mr. Speaker, by the leave of the House. If it is the wish of the House, I would like to reply briefly to the major points which have been made during this Debate. I am helped to be brief by the fact that the same point on the same Clause, with, of course, new angles to it, has been made over and over again by different speakers.
Let me first reply to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Leicester (Mr. Donovan), who drew attention to Subsection (2, d) of the last Clause of the Bill. The effect of this is that the Bill should be read as one with previous enactments. He pointed out that since 1918 there had been 36 Finance Acts, and he asked that the law on Income Tax should be codified, and that the Committee for the Codification of the Income Tax Acts should be reconstituted. This is a work which, for some time now, Chancellors of the Exchequer have had it in mind to undertake.
It is true that almost 30 years have passed since the last codification took place, and the time is more than due for a similar piece of work to be undertaken. The matter was dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) in reply to a question on 27th October last, when he said that he was afraid that pressure of other work made it impossible to undertake this long and complicated task at


the present time. It would certainly be long and complicated, particularly if—as I believe is in the mind of my hon. and learned Friend, and in the minds of other hon. Members—something more than consolidation were to take place and the Income Tax law were to be simplified. That, too, is something which is long overdue. In many Acts the language is very obscure. Of course, the difficulty is that that language has now been looked at by the courts, and certain meanings have been applied to certain phrases. There may be a large crop of litigation when we try to simplify the law—which we shall, of course, have to do—if words then take on a new meaning, or if people are not quite sure that they mean what they had meant earlier.
I wish to refer to the criticisms that have been made about Clause 8, which deals with interest on arrears of Schedule D Income Tax, Surtax, E.P.T., Profits Tax, etc. This matter was touched upon by the right hon. Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley), the hon. Member for Edgbaston (Sir F. Bennett), the hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd), the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne), and by other hon. Members. I have already said that the £780 million to which so much reference has been made, some of it, unfortunately, in the Press, was the Public Accounts Committee's figure, which was given in their Report. It was perhaps unfortunate, to say the least, that that figure was given currency, and people did not realise that it was the total of assessments, as well as including moneys then due.
It was necessary, both in the interests of truth, and for other reasons, that the matter should be clarified. I am glad to think that we have here today put the matter in its true perspective. For one thing, I was worried by the possible effect of the assessments figure on those people who come under Schedule E. They might feel, and not without reason, that, if certain taxpayers who paid tax under other Schedules were "getting away with it," to the tune of something like £780 million, then they were being hardly done by. In addition to this, it was right, for the sake of the reputation of the Inland Revenue, that it should be demonstrated that they have not been lax.

Colonel Dower: Was the figure that of the actual tax, or was it tax under discussion or in dispute?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: It was the total assessments then outstanding under all these various heads, including, I think, only Schedule D, so far as Income Tax was concerned.
The amount outstanding at the end of 1945 was, nevertheless, £191 million. That is a substantial sum, which is worth getting in. If the charging of interest after a certain period helps to bring it in, it will be worth while. At any rate, we shall see what happens. It is our hope and belief that it will help to step up the payment of overdue tax. I was astonished to hear the senior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter) say that this is a precedent; it is, of course, nothing of the sort. The noble Lord the right hon. Member for Horsham (Earl Winter-ton), who has been in this House for many years, and who, I am sure, remembers the action taken in the war of 1914–18, will bear me out when I say that at that time the same device was put into operation in order to bring in arrears of E.P.D. Today interest is already charged on unpaid Death Duties.

Earl Winterton: As the right hon. Gentleman has been good enough to refer to me, I must say that I would not like it to go on record that I have any such recollection. I hope it will not be taken that I am assenting or dissenting to the right hon. Gentleman's interesting observation, although I am grateful to him for calling attention to my presence in the House.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I am glad to please the noble Lord, who may take it—I will not call him in evidence—that what I am saying is true, although it refers to a period when the vast majority of us were not Members of this House. Therefore, this provision is by no means a precedent, quite the reverse. It has been in operation before, in the case of Excess Profits Duty, and it is certainly still in existence so far as unpaid Death Duties are concerned. I would say to the senior Burgess for Oxford University and other hon. Members, who have raised this point that the Government themselves pay interest when people pay their tax in advance, or make an allowance for payment of tax in


advance. Earlier today we dealt with the form that takes when we were talking about tax reserve certificates.
I was astonished to hear the hon. and gallant Member for Penrith and Cocker-mouth (Colonel Dower) say that the Government had delayed payment of a claim which had been settled, so far as the terms of the claim were concerned, for from three to four years. If he has in mind a case in which that has actually happened, and if I can be of use to him in getting the matter cleared up, I should be delighted to help him.

Colonel Dower: The Financial Secretary has given the impression that he was surprised that the Government did not pay all these claims after they had been made. Frequently, one gets no reply for a year or two, and then they admit it.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: That statement is very sweeping, and I cannot accept it for one moment. I agree that sometimes Departments, owing to the extreme pressure of work and the great shortage of staff, are rather slow about answering correspondence, but I have no reason to believe that the delay amounts to a year or more, far from it. I am certainly surprised to hear that a claim, the amount of which has been agreed, has remained unpaid by the Government Department concerned for the length of time mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member. I cannot help thinking that there must be something wrong. In any case, it is a matter which should be considered forthwith, and if he will let me have the particulars I will certainly have the matter gone into.
May I deal briefly with the Profits Tax? Almost every hon. Member referred to it. The hon. Member for West Ealing (Mr. J. Hudson) had his own angle on this. I thought that, on the whole, he made a very useful contribution to the Debate. He brought out one point very clearly. It is a point which we must not forget. I refer to the effect on the workers of this country if.profits had been outside the purview of this Finance Bill. If general increases had been made on beer, wines and whisky, with swingeing increases in Purchase Tax, and nothing had been done about profits, the workers would have felt, at this time when they are asked to work harder than ever, that they had been given a raw deal. On that ground alone,

there is a great deal to be said for this tax.
The hon. Member for Flint (Mr. Birch) said that the Profits Tax was offensive in principle. Far be it from me to tell him that he should not talk in such a wild way, but I would remind him that words of that kind are sometimes a boomerang. If we go back to the war of 1914, we find that a profits tax—the Excess Profits Duty—was imposed then, and it was certainly not imposed by a Socialist or Labour Government. Between the wars, we had the National Defence Contribution, which was also, in essence, a tax of the same kind. During the last war, before the Labour Government came into Office, we had E.P.T.
Those hon. Members who read the "Economist" will have noticed that it has advice to offer from time to time to my right hon. and learned Friend. Certainly, it offered quite a lot of advice week by week, to his predecessor. The "Economist" is urging the present Chancellor to make the economic and financial policies of the Government run in the same, and not in the opposite, direction. Therefore, if the economic policy of the Government is to damp down on capital expenditure, it is obvious that, in a Budget of this kind, interim and supplementary though it may be, the proposals we make should have the same effect. It would be quite wrong to leave money to fructify in the pockets of the companies concerned when the whole policy of the Government is directed towards putting temptation out of the way both of companies and individuals to spend money which they happen to have lying about either in the bank, in reserve, or, if they happen to be individuals, in their pockets.
Profits are profits, and, up to now, they have been looked upon by successive Chancellors as fit objects for taxation. The mere fact that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) divided profits into two categories, and said that those which were distributed at any time should pay one rate of tax, and those ploughed back should pay something less, does not mean that profits cease to be profits. We must remember that this device of charging more Profits Tax on profits which are distributed may be, possibly, a temporary device—I do not know. We cannot


assume that profits which are not distributed will forever either pay only a small rate of tax compared with profits which are distributed, or else that they will pay no tax at all. The logic of that is such that we must admit that profits should not escape taxation altogether because they are placed to reserve.

Mr. Drayson: I take it that the Minister agrees that they are subject to the ordinary basic rate of Income Tax?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Profits Tax is taken off before Income Tax. I do not want to go into the question now.
The burden of much of the criticism from hon. Members opposite, is that, somehow, undistributed profits are sacred and should not be subject to Profits Tax. The device invented—I use that word advisedly—by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland was introduced in order to help industry to emerge from the war years and re-equip itself. At present when expenditure on capital investment is to be decried, my right hon. and learned Friend had every right to increase the rate of tax on both distributed and undistributed profits.

Sir A. Salter: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that it is desirable that in addition to the taxation which the equity investor shares with every other earner of income, whether from debentures or in any other way, there should be a special taxation on the person who takes a risk?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I do not mean anything of the sort. I am dealing with one narrow issue. It is true that some people risk their capital and others, seeking investment in another field, risk very little. In normal times, the return on the one is vastly different from the return on the other. One man seeks a gilt edged security and he gets a low rate of interest. Another may risk a lot and, if he is lucky, he may win a lot.
I reiterate the promise made by my right hon. and learned Friend during earlier discussions on this Bill. The Chancellor then promised that he would over-haul the whole field of Purchase Tax. The House may be interested to know that, on his behalf, I have already taken steps to see that that is done, so that next April we shall be able to see just where we are on this matter.
I wish to say a final word to the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers). He wanted to know whether I could assure him that Treasury control would be maintained in spite of the dual role. of the Chancellor. I can assure him that, in spite of the dual position which my right hon. and learned Friend now occupies, the policy of the Government, until recently carried through by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland, will be continued by the present Chancellor——

Mr. Stanley: Does that mean that there will be no Treasury control of spending Departments?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I have already indicated, in reply to the hon. Member for Orpington, that Treasury control will continue.

Mr. Stanley: The right hon. Gentleman said that the policy of the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland would continue. That is quite a different thing, because his policy was to have no Treasury control.

Mr. Drayson: Can we be told, in connection with this control, whether we will have Jekyll or Hyde at the Treasury?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I am afraid I have been a little longer than I intended in replying, but I think that I have now covered most of the points that have been put. I do not expect that hon. Gentlemen opposite will be satisfied with what I have said, but I have tried to answer on behalf of my right hon. and learned Friend, and I hope that we may now have the Third Reading.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS [REMISSION OF DEBT]

Resolution reported:
That, for the purpose of any Act of the present Session relating to local loans, it is expedient to authorise the remission of all arrears of interest due to the Public Works Loan Commissioners in respect of a loan to Alexander Fowlie and Mary Ann Fowlie.

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

CLAUSE 1.—(Grants for public works.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

7.32 p.m.

Mr. Charles Williams: This is a most interesting Clause, but I feel that we ought to hear something more about it and that the Financial Secretary would wish to add to his laurels by telling us. It will be noted that we are now being asked to grant a sum not exceeding £250 million to the Government. Some of us who are interested in this matter of public works loans took the line the other day that, although, quite obviously, the right hon. Gentleman could not say definitely how the whole of this amount would be split up, it would be quite possible for him to give us a general sense of direction whether, for example, a large proportion of this money would fall to be paid for the building of temporary houses, or for other purposes, such as general housing or other developments. We asked the right hon. Gentleman whether the recent capital expenditure cuts would have any effect?
Before we grant a very big sum such as this, we should have some idea of where it is going. The right hon. Gentleman, in his reply to me on Friday, said:
It is, therefore, quite impossible for me to give the hon. Member for Torquay any indication of how the figures will be broken up, as the money has not yet been advanced."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th December, 1947; Vol. 445. c. 732.]
That struck me as being a rather curious expression, even for this Government. It was curious that we should have no understanding of how the money was going until it had actually been advanced to someone. I have had some dealings in these matters one way or another, and I think that there must be a policy or some means of knowing whether the money is likely to be needed for certain developments. For that reason, even if no one else wishes to know, I venture to ask, in a perfectly friendly way, if we may have some further explanation before we actually pass this Clause.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): I dealt with this matter on the Second Reading stage, and

I am sorry to find that I have not satisfied the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams). I can only repeat to him that this is an enabling Measure. We have to pass a Measure of this sort because, no local authority can go into the market and borrow money for its own needs. Under the Act of 1945, it must come to the Public Works Loans Board, which is the organ dealing with this matter on behalf of the Government. The present Act, which this Bill will replace, is nearly exhausted. The amounts which were there allowed were £250 million for cash advances and up to £500 million cash advances plus commitments. There now remains only about £30 million under the present powers to advance actual money, and the powers to commit are, in addition, very largely used. It is, therefore, essential that we should get fresh powers to permit the Public Works Loans Board to advance money, or to promise to advance money, to local authorities who need it.
In the majority of cases, in so far as local authorities will come to the Public Works Loans Board, they will come for moneys for housing purposes, and they will not come until they have been through the appropriate Department, in this case the Ministry of Health. Therefore, any schemes which come forward will have gone through the proper channels and will have been completely vetted. Many of these schemes, as the hon. Gentleman knows, have already been agreed to, although the money has not yet been advanced. The Government, in turn, have decided to finish off the houses which are in a fair way towards completion, Therefore, to complete these houses as visualised in the White Paper, local authorities will need money, and some of this money will undoubtedly go to them. If it does not go to them, it will not be used.

Mr. C. Williams: On this matter of housing, will the right hon. Gentleman answer one question? There is also the position of the temporary houses, and I believe that that policy is running out this year. Will any of this money be used for temporary houses? I think the matter was raised the other day, and I should be glad if we may now have an answer.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Speaking from memory and without checking it, it is


my belief that very little, if any, of the money which has been spent up to now, or the commitments entered into up to now, is for temporary houses. Temporary house building is largely coming to an end, but it is very likely that some of the money which has been advanced, and a certain amount of that which has been promised, may be for temporary houses. I think the hon. Gentleman will find that it is a very small proportion of the actual total.

Mr. Williams: Before we leave this Clause, I want to emphasise that this is a very large sum of money—over L200 million—which is purely inflationary, and which, at the present time, must be inflationary. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that part of his reply, but it has been pointed out repeatedly that at present we have to try to stop inflation. The right hon. Gentleman comes down here, after having had our position placed very fully before him as to why this precise sum is needed, and he says that he is unable to tell us. I am not taking the matter any further at the moment, but it is a matter of some consequence when we find that the Financial Secretary is completely incapable, even after long warning, of informing the country in what direction in housing this money will go. In other words, there is little or no direction, and very little policy, behind the demand for this money. I regret that, but I am glad I have had the opportunity of raising the matter.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: This is the second time I have tried to get into the head of the hon. Member for Torquay that this is only an enabling Bill, and that this money has not yet been asked for by the local authorities. I defy him or anyone else to know the purpose for which local authorities are likely, in the coming year, to ask for advances from the Board. I can assure him that, so far as we know—having some knowledge of what local authorities do—the most likely object for which they will want money is housing.

Mr. Williams: I quite appreciate that this is an enabling Bill, and I regret that the right hon. Gentleman took that tone with me. I know this type of Bill, and, if I may say so with respect, I knew about it long before the right hon. Gentleman came to this House of Commons, or had anything to do with the place. Quite

frankly, I am objecting to the Financial Secretary asking for a sum of money in an enabling Bill, and, at the same time, not knowing why that sum of money is asked for.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 to 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

7.41 p.m.

Mr. C. Williams: I do not propose to take up the time of the House with regard to the Third Reading, but, as hon. Members know, it is the last opportunity We have of speaking on a Bill dealing with a large sum of money. I do not propose to continue speaking in the same vein in which we ended the Committee stage. I merely wish to say, quite simply, that, so far as I am concerned—and as far as this House was concerned when we were dealing with this on a previous occasion—I regret that we were not given more precise information by the Financial Secretary. I will not take it any further than that, because I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman has had a very busy day. I am not asking him for an answer now. I realise that he has borne with us with a great deal of patience, and I am not in the least worried about what he said just now. At the same time, I think it is a pity that there is not someone present who can help us a bit further, and who can give us more information about the very considerable sum involved.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): The hon. Gentleman has been given a good deal of latitude, and-he has repeated himself more than once. This is the Third Reading of the Bill, and he knows better than almost anyone in this House what questions he may raise on Third Reading. In my view, he Will be out of Order if he continues on his present line.

Mr.. Williams: With very great respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I would point out that I am raising the question of the actual figures in Clause 2 of the Bill. Of course, there are the other Clauses, with which


I do not wish to deal, and the Schedule to the Bill, all of which are within the Bill. The only point I had in mind at the time was to emphasise that I consider the whole purpose of Clause 2 is entirely and absolutely inflationary.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS AND PHARMACISTS BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 3.—(Persons who have served in a medical capacity in H.M. Forces overseas.)

The Chairman: I think it would be convenient if the four Amendments on the Order Paper in the name of the Minister were discussed together.

7.45 P.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. John Edwards): I beg to move, in page 3, line 11 after "who," to insert:
after the first day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine.
This Amendment, together with the following three Amendments, is to meet the case of the alien doctors who, although they have not served in His Majesty's Forces, have given valuable service in a civilian medical capacity overseas. As the Clause is being extended to cover civilian service, the date of 1st September, 1939, is inserted to ensure that only service during the war period shall count.
The first part of the fourth Amendment, that in page 3, line 14, provides for aliens who served with the Red Cross, the Friends Ambulance Unit, and similar bodies in co-operation with our Forces. The second part of that Amendment is intended to cover alien doctors employed as civilians who looked after the medical welfare of prisoners of war, internees, and the civilian population generally in British territories overseas, which were the scene of military operations, or territories, such as Hong Kong and Singapore, which were

in enemy occupation. There may only be a few in this category, but we felt, on principle, that it was right that the claims of any such people should be recognised. The limitation which applies to doctors who settled in the United Kingdom applies to these people as well as to the others covered by the Bill.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: We do not propose to offer any objection to these Amendments. However, as I think the Parliamentary Secretary will agree, they do widen the Bill to some extent. In the first place, therefore, I wish to ask him if he had consultation on this point with the professional organisations concerned, because I know they thought they had been generous in opening the register to the considerable number of new entrants who will be inscribed upon it in consequence of this Bill. They wish to be sure that it will not be unduly widened by any subsequent step. I think the main case to which this Amendment refers, that of a doctor in Hong Kong, was raised during the Second Reading Debate by the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings). But I had some correspondence with the professional organisations thereafter, and they wished to be sure that it will not be unduly widened. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary could give us some assurance on that point.

Mr. J. Edwards: As far as I am aware, there is no difficulty with any of the professional organisations on this point. Although it may seem to be a widening, it will, in fact, cover relatively few people. I think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would agree that we ought not to leave out people who have rendered quite meritorious service to us merely because they did not happen to be in the Forces. I think he may take it that there is no objection in any quarter of the profession on this point.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that it would be churlish to niggle at admitting certain distinguished medical people simply because they had given service in one form of organisation rather than in another. I just wish to be sure that the Minister has reassured himself as to the assurance which he has just given, I understand he is able to give that assurance now with full confidence. In that case I


would not delay it further. I think the general purpose of the Amendment, namely, to be sure that people are not left out simply because of some technical objection, is a sound one and that the liberality of the learned profession of medicine is displayed in their acceptance of this addition to the already considerable opening of the register to which this Bill gives effect.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 3, line 12, after "capacity," insert "outside the United Kingdom."

In line 14, leave out "outside the United Kingdom."

In line 14, at end, insert:
or in any voluntary organisation operating in connection with any such forces, or have served in a medical capacity outside the United Kingdom for the care of British subjects or British protected persons in a place in His Majesty's dominions, a British protectorate or a country or territory under His Majesty's protection or suzerainty or in which His Majesty had for the time being jurisdiction during the carrying on of war operations in that place or its occupation by the enemy or the continuance of circumstances arising therefrom."—[Mr. J. Edwards.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Gallacher: I do not know how it stands in connection with this Bill, but in certain countries practitioners such as osteopaths who have diplomas are recognised and allowed to practise in those countries. I would like to know if under this Bill, and particularly under this Amendment an American osteopath, for example, who has a right to practise in his own country, and other such types who are outside the recognised medical fraternity in this country, can be included for the purposes of this Act.

Mr. House: I would like to deal with the same point. The Clause refers to recognition of members of the medical profession from the Commonwealth or foreign practitioners. I am not enamoured of the extension of recognised doctors in this country because I am of the opinion that they neither prevent ill health nor effectively cure disease. The facts are rather to the contrary, notwithstanding the praiseworthy opinion. I have of them socially. From a healing standpoint, I think they are falling down on their job in their use

of medicines, drugs and injections and so forth. The statement here as to foreign practitioners is rather interesting because in America a qualified naturopath, that is to say, a person who follows the natural line of healing, is officially recognised. It is a crime to the health of our people in this country that such similarly qualified practitioners in this country are not recognised and that the health of the people should suffer as a consequence. I think the recognition of persons who follow the wrong line of health treatment——

Hon, Members: Order.

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Robert Young): I did not hear what the hon. Member said but I think he should remember that the point before the Committee is that the Clause should stand part and he should confine himself to that.

Mr. House: It is with that part of the Clause I wish to deal as far as practitioners are concerned. I am hoping the Clause does mean that we shall have the same standard of recognition for qualified health practitioners in this country as attains at present for medical practitioners. Doctors do not attend my family or myself, and I suffer minor illnesses frequently. I go to a qualified naturopath——

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is going outside the terms of the Clause which refers to persons who served in a medical capacity in His Majesty's Forces.

Mr. House: May I point out that the Clause refers to "a foreign practitioner"? I want to know if that practitioner means a health practitioner, that is to say, a person who is preventing ill-health and restoring good health? I think it is a very potent question indeed. After all, we need to look after the health of the people of this country and not merely to ensure qualification of persons who practise medicine. Thousands of people suffer premature death and millions unnecessarily suffer minor and serious illnesses due to the ineffectiveness of the medical profession. If this Clause does include qualified naturopaths who can effectively look after the health of the people, I agree that the Clause should stand part.

Mr. J. Edwards: I think the answer to the hon. Member for North St. Pancras (Mr. House), put simply, is "No." If the hon. Member will look at Clause 10 he will find there a definition——

Mr. Gallacher: Is it not a fact there are many osteopaths in America who during the war treated not only American but British soldiers?

Mr. Edwards: My hon. Friend need not have interrupted me in the middle of a sentence to make that point. I was saying that if my hon. Friend looks at Clause 10 he will find what this question of diplomas means. We are here not revising the right to practise medicine. We are dealing with a certain number of postwar problems arising out of the fact that we have a number of foreign doctors and pharmacists in this country who have not British, but foreign qualifications. All this Bill does is to put that right, to regularise the position and to clear up all the troubles arising from the war. There will certainly be no recognition granted to any other than those who come within the recognition of the General Medical Council as it is understood at the present time. It does not propose to do anything other than bring in the foreign doctors and put them on all fours with the others.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 8.—(Power to register as Commonwealth or foreign practitioners certain persons in the United Kingdom temporarily for employment in hospitals.)

8.0 p.m.

Mr. J. Edwards: I beg to move, in page 6, line 29, at the end, to insert:
(2) Where a direction for registration under this Section is given, the Council may include therein a direction that the right to registration pursuant thereto shall be subject to payment by the person as to whom the direction is given of such fee as may be therein specified not being greater than the fee for the time being determined by the Council for the registration of persons as Commonwealth practitioners or as foreign practitioners, as the case may be, under Section eleven or twelve of the Medical Act, 1886.
Earlier provisions in this Bill in Clause 6 deal with the payment of registration fees to the General Medical Council and are limited to the various, wartime categories covered by Clauses 2, 3 and 4, and the payment of fees is obligatory in all these cases. There did not seem to us to be the same case for an invariable rule as to the payment of fees by distinguished

visitors as covered by Clause 8. We think that it would be invidious to say that those who come here for our benefit and not primarily for their own should pay a fee. The case of the post-graduate student is different. More work will be entailed for the General Medical Council in following their movements. They are here for their own advantage, and it seems to us that in such cases a fee may be justified. It has, therefore, been decided to give the General Medical Council power in such cases to charge a fee, not exceeding the present fee, which I believe is £5, and to leave the council free to reduce or to waive the fee if they think fit.

Mr. Gallacher: I would like the right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) to read and read again this Amendment. When some of the right hon. and gallant Member's Friends make objections because the miners' or other workers' unions demand that those who come into the industry should become members of their union and pay their dues, let them remember what they are passing here tonight and let them sit humble and say nothing.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Not for the first time the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) totally misconceives the nature and constitution of the General Medical Council, the rules under which it works and the rights which it gives to anyone who is registered upon it. If I were to suggest now or at any other time that the miners' union should be replaced by a body set up by Statute, I should be out of Order and I shall not, therefore, proceed to do so. I would, however, call the attention of the hon. Member to the fact that this is not the British Medical Association we are speaking of, but the General Medical Council, a statutory body, not set up by the medical profession, over which the medical profession have no rights at all. It is set up and controlled by this House.
The second point is that, even so, to be inscribed upon it gives certain limited rights and does not in any way preclude anyone who is not inscribed upon it from practising medicine in any way that he wishes to do. If the hon. Member for West Fife would remember those two things when we are next discussing this question of trade organisation, perhaps he too will sit humble and say nothing.

Mr. David Renton: The main purpose of the General Medical Council is the protection of the public, a fact which the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) appears to have overlooked—or perhaps he does not care about that.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Somerville Hastings: The Clause is designed to permit distinguished physicians and surgeons who come to this country to give demonstrations to those who are interested in new methods of treatment. In that respect it is a most desirable Clause but that is not all. Other doctors come into this country from the uttermost parts of the earth to study our methods and to learn what they can from us. Some of these doctors are exceedingly able people. Some are much less so, and the less able the doctors are the more anxious they are to take home to their own country some ocular demonstration of their ability. If they can carry home with them a certificate that they have acted as house surgeon in a British hospital they will be greatly pleased. They will take home the certificate, have it framed, and hang it up in their consulting rooms, and as 90 per cent. of their patients will not know the difference between surgeon and house surgeon, their patients will be much impressed.
I am afraid of that happening. I realise the desirability of distinguished doctors coming here, but if the smaller fry—if I may put the matter so—some of whom are not as well qualified as doctors who leave the medical schools in this country, are allowed to come and treat cases in our hospitals which they are not permitted to treat outside, it is a bit dangerous. I want to see the Clause tightened up, if possible. Would it not be possible to begin by saying "regulations shall provide" that in the case of a person who comes to this country, etc. It would then be easy for the Minister to make the necessary regulations. Or alternately instead of:
for the purpose of employment in a medical capacity 
these words might be substituted: "For the purpose of demonstration or instruction."
I do not want to make myself a nuisance or to make the speech I made on the Second Reading, but I feel that this Clause, while useful, might be to some extent improved because it does leave the general public in hospital at the mercy of people who come over to this country and who are less well qualified and less able to treat disease than those who are qualified in the ordinary way here. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to look at the matter again with the object of review and, if he thinks fit, to tighten up the wording so as not to allow people who come here to learn being a danger to the public.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 9 to 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill, reported, with Amendments; as amended, considered; read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

HOUSING (SERVICE HUTS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn." —[Mr. Watkins.]

8.9 p.m.

Mr. David Renton: I desire to draw attention to the need for making the maximum possible use of former Service huts for ordinary civilian housing purposes. I count myself fortunate that this matter, which I have had the good fortune to raise, can now be discussed until half-past ten. I sincerely trust that hon. Members will consider this a worthwhile opportunity of making a positive contribution to solving the housing problem of thousands of people. I believe that can be done if this once despised form of building, in which many of us spent long periods with varying degrees of discomfort and happiness during the war years, is now appreciated to be a valuable asset. It is a matter which concerns hon. Members on both sides of the House equally. I suppose it concerns every constituency, except the City of London and the Universities.
If the question is tackled with thoroughness, the Government and the local authorities have a very great opportunity. We are all familiar with the


various types of temporary wartime dwellings. They are built all over the country, sometimes in large camps, sometimes in ones, twos and threes, sometimes in remote places on airfields and militia camps, and sometimes right in the middle of towns. They are built, for the most part, in three main types of material. There are those which are built of brick and concrete; there are those of the corrugated iron type, known most often as Nissen huts; and there is the type which is built in wooden sections and so constructed that they are capable of being taken down and re-erected in another place. Many thousands of Service men and women had to sleep and work in these huts during the war, but when they did so, few of them could have realised that they might later be seeking this sort of building as the only available home.
Perhaps I ought to mention that I intend to make no recriminations about housing in this Debate, and I am sure that the Ministers, both of whom I am delighted to see here, will tackle the matter in a similar spirit. We now have to realise that the temporary housing programme is drawing to its close, that when it has done so 160,000 houses will have been completed, and that for economic reasons the permanent housing programme has been postponed except in the case of essential workers—namely coalminers and agricultural workers. This is happening at a time when many thousands of families, especially young married couples, are without separate homes of their own. Although I do not, and could not for one minute, claim that these former Service huts provide ideal homes, I do say that they provide a much better opportunity of living for a few years the sort of family life which many people would prefer to lead merely because of having a separate home in which to lead it.
It so happens that I have paved the way for this Adjournment Debate, as many hon. Members do, by finding out as many facts as I possibly could by means of Parliamentary Questions. I see the Minister of Works and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health both smile. I am sure they are familiar with some of these matters. However, it is just as well to ascertain the facts, because in a sense we are dealing with what may be described as a concrete problem, if I

may be forgiven for saying so, yet when one tries to ascertain its total dimensions all over the country one finds it is really not a concrete problem at all but a somewhat nebulous one.
I have managed to ascertain that on 22nd January, 1946, the Ministry of Health issued a circular No. 20, the title of which was "The Conversion of Temporary Wartime Buildings to Housing Use," and I find that in pursuance of that circular it is possible for local authorities to Convert wartime huts into temporary civilian dwellings by the expenditure of not more than £250 per family. I know that in my own constituency, at least one local authority has made some very good use of the powers granted in that circular, and I learned from the Minister of Health, in answer to a Question last week, that by 31st October this year 9,325 families had been housed in huts converted in that way.
There is a further point that I should mention in passing, about the use of those powers for converting huts at not more than £250 per family, and it is that huts so converted are assumed to have an expectation of life of approximately 10 years. It is interesting to note that that is the approximate expectation of life of the temporary bungalows in the prefabricated house programme. It is also interesting to note what a tremendous advantage by way of cost this conversion of former Service huts has over the cost of the temporary housing programme. The cost is £250 per family as compared with £1,300 and upwards.
The Minister of Health also told me. last week, in answer to a Question, that there were 9,997 families living in former Service huts—let me call it 10,000 for the sake of a round figure—upon which £250 has not been spent in conversion. In other words, there are more families living in the huts just as they were when those families found them, than there are families living in the converted huts. It is my own experience, at any rate in my own constituency, that quite 80 per cent. of the men who are living in these unconverted former Service huts are themselves ex-Service men, and we have to remember that until their demobilisation they were not in a position to be on the look out for houses. They were, so to speak, at the bottom of the lists of


the housing applications which started to be made as the war approached its end. That is the main reason why those ex-Service men had to scrounge round for anything they could find, and many of them have preferred to live in Service huts than live as lodgers or with their in-laws, or in conditions of squalor due to overcrowding which they might otherwise have to face.
My first positive suggestion to the Government is that huts already occupied and not yet converted in accordance with this admirable circular issued by the Ministry should be much improved by the expenditure of £250. That sum was fixed as the upper limit nearly two years ago. The value of money has changed since then, the cost of building work has risen, and if we are to make this work effective it might be well to review that figure of £250 and make it correspond with the present value of money. My second suggestion is that the local authorities should be encouraged to take a more lively interest in the people living in these huts, and, indeed, a more lively interest in the whole question of hutted accommodation.
Under Section 71 of the Housing Act of 1936, the Section placing this general housing duty upon local authorities, they are charged with the duty of examining the housing needs in their district and of framing proposals to meet those needs. These proposals are submitted in various stages to the Ministry of Health, and I would be interested to know what proportion of the local authorities in the country, in pursuance of their duties under Section 71 of the Housing Act, have actually submitted to the Ministry proposals relating to the hutted camps within their areas.
If I may hazard a guess, I would say that the general attitude of the local authorities is this: "There are these hutted camps, we do not like them very much, we do not always know the people who have gone into them; we have got our own ideas as to how we would like to fulfil our own housing programme and let us stick to that. Of course, if the Ministry of Health wants us to do something about the hutted camp, let them virtually order us to do so, and, then we will do it, not on our own account but as agents of the Ministry." If my guess is not far wrong—and I believe it is not —I would suggest that the time has come

to make local authorities alive to the facts of the present and future situation and to point out to them that this valuable asset must not be wasted. When we find that there are camps or huts so remotely situated from people's work that it is not a practicable or useful idea to encourage people to live in them, then these huts, instead of just being allowed to go to rack and ruin, should, as far as possible, be dismantled and the materials used either for erecting fresh huts elsewhere or for equipping huts which are to be converted with the various perquisites which at the moment they do not possess.
May I first of all deal with this question of taking down and re-erecting. I know there are serious limitations; obviously you cannot take down brick and concrete huts in order to re-erect them elsewhere. Having had some experience of Nissen huts during the war, and knowing that I have slept in Nissen huts which have been leaking after being up only two years, I would not put very great hopes on pulling down Nissen huts and re-erecting them, although, of course, there may occasionally be some which have been kept in very good condition—well painted and so on. My main proposal to the Government on this relates to the wooden huts which are built in sections, and are supposed to be, and generally were, erected in sections in such a way that they could readily be taken down, moved and re-erected if required elsewhere. I suggest that the Government should very carefully consider the possibility of surveying all the country for the purpose of finding which of these wooden huts have been built in such remote places that they will not be lived in by people needing houses, but which, if moved, would serve very useful purposes.
All three classes of huts which I have mentioned, however, do contain a number of useful fittings. They all contain—or a great many of them do—wash basins, sinks, stoves, sometimes baths, kitchen ranges, many useful electrical fittings and many power plugs of which there is a considerable scarcity. At the present, huts on remote aerodromes are mostly left empty with the doors and windows open and the weather getting at them. I spent a couple of hours two or three week-ends ago wandering round a remote and now completely deserted air-


field, magnificently fitted. I found scarcely a hut into which I could not walk, scarcely even a hut which had not the windows open, and I did not find a single hut which was not already beginning to suffer considerably from neglect. In a very large number of these huts there are most useful fittings which could be used in the conversion of huts elsewhere.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Would the hon. Gentleman permit me to ask a question? Is he talking specifically about the huts he has come across in his own constituency or about huts generally throughout the country, in describing them as containing these various fittings?

Mr. Renton: My own experience has naturally been based mainly on my own constituency, but I have seen many other constituencies and, having made a much more superficial observation in other constituencies, I should have thought—and this is only my opinion—that my own constituency offered a fair example. Therefore, I would ask the Government what steps are being taken to prevent these fittings from either rotting or finding their way into the black market, because that is the other tendency which has started.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. John Edwards): Would the hon. Gentleman say whether the airfield he is describing is an airfield still under the control of the Air Ministry or not?

Mr. Renton: No, it is an airfield which has been ploughed up all round the runways and, therefore, the open part of the aerodrome has, in fact, been derequisitioned and handed back to farming. There are no personnel, R.A.F. or civilian, living in any of the huts that I could see. At a rough guess, I should say there were 200 huts on the airfield. I shall not give the name of it in public, but shall give it to the Parliamentary Secretary afterwards; because I think that to give the names of places like that is merely to invite people to go to dismantle them. I will most certainly give the Parliamentary Secretary the name of that one I have in mind, and of others as well. It is the duty of every hon. Member to find out all he can about these places, because they constitute for many families the only solution of their

housing problem—and will do so for some years.
To summarise what I have to say, because it may be of value to the Parliamentary Secretary when he replies, I say, generally, that the fullest possible use should be made of those huts, that they ought not to be allowed to become a wasting asset, and that they are a really valuable asset. Secondly, I say they should be converted, wherever possible, by spending £250, or possibly even more, upon them; thirdly, that local authorities should be encouraged to take a more lively interest in them, especially where there are fair sized camps; fourth, that wooden huts in remote places should be taken down and re-erected where they may be needed; and lastly, that the fittings which are not wanted for any other valid purpose should be removed and used for improving those houses which are without such fittings.
The people are still suffering very greatly as a result of the lack of houses, and that specially applies to ex-Servicemen, who, as I say, were last in the hunt for houses. The use of these huts will not do more than house a few thousand families. I know that. However, that should not deter the Government from trying to house as many families as they can in the huts. I seriously maintain that the present number of families, which, on the figures I have given, totals under 20,000, could easily be doubled by the fullest and best use of those huts, and I would encourage the Government to go ahead with the work of converting them.

8.32 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: I should like to get clear the situation regarding these huts. The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) said the Government should make the fullest use of them and not allow them to become a wasting asset. In my constituency there are some ex-Servicemen who wanted a couple of huts for an ex-Servicemen's club, to replace the premises they had and which were built in 1920 and are now completely dilapidated. I understand that they could not get the huts because there is such a demand for them, apparently, for other purposes. I would say, in view of the statements I have received, that there is little chance of the huts being used for the purpose the hon. Member has put forward, but I should also like to say this


much; that the fact that it can be suggested that huts should be used for housing is an indication of the terrible conditions that appertain in this country so far as many families are concerned. My own county council sent me a letter recently, saying that there are about 3,000 families in Fife waiting for houses, most of whom are living in sub-lets. It is ghastly that people should have to live in such conditions.
I was talking to a lad at the weekend who has succeeded in getting one of the temporary houses which the Minister described at one stage as sub-standard houses. That lad and his wife and their couple of kiddies lived with his mother-in-law. Now he and his wife have one of the temporary houses. They do not describe it as home. They describe it as "paradise." "It is paradise," he said —paradise to have a lovely little place of their own away from the sub-let conditions in which they have been living. If there is any possible way of getting housing accommodation which will take people out of the sub-lets, away from disease breeding slums, to places that will provide them with homes of their own, comfortable places which will give them a chance of health and happiness, there is not a Member of this House who would not be ready to give support to the project.
But I am not too hopeful that the huts will provide such homes. In my constituency, in Leslie, I was round visiting some huts occupied by squatters who were living in conditions that were appalling. There was an appalling lack of amenities, so far as sanitation was concerned, that would horrify any hon. Member who saw it. It is not always an easy matter to move huts to a place where the necessary amenities can be provided. It is possible that if huts were taken from one place to another, it might cost nearly as much to provide the necessary amenities—such as sewerage and sanitation—if the huts are to provide healthy homes in which people can live and bring up children, as it would to build temporary houses; that is, if we could get temporary houses under the original conditions, not aluminium houses at the price recently mentioned by the Minister. I do not think there is much hope of doing anything through the
medium of the huts. However, if it were possible to get huts in suitable sur-

roundings, and to provide all the necessary amenities—not as some of the huts are at present, with people living in conditions as bad as those of sublet houses, because of the lack of those amenities—then I am certain many people who live in sublet houses, or in the worst of our slums, would be only too glad of the opportunity to live in them.
The fact that this matter has been raised by the hon. Member for Huntingdon is yet another indication of the terrible plight in which thousands of our people are living today, and it should spur us on to do everything possible to ensure that at the earliest possible moment our people get what is the first and fundamental right of every man, woman and child—a home. What possibility is there of life, health and wellbeing for our people if they have not healthy homes? This should spur us all on to do everything possible to see that all our people have homes. Whatever cuts are to be made, there should be no cut in housing. I ask the Minister who replies to say that, even if he cannot provide any huts for this purpose, he will see that everything possible is clone to avoid cuts so far as house building is concerned, and that the maximum amount of permanent and temporary houses will be provided for the people of this country.

8.38 p.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I very rarely find myself in the agreeable position of agreeing wholeheartedly with the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher), but I certainly do so tonight. He was absolutely right when he said it was a tragic commentary upon the state of affairs existing in this country today that this House should find it necessary to be discussing this subject tonight. In those circumstances, there is no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) has performed a very good service indeed in securing that this Matter should be discussed in the House of Commons.
I agree, too, with the hon. Member for West Fife in saying that much of the hut accommodation available provides accommodation with a far lower standard of amenity than that to which our people are entitled or should be submitted. However, it is also true to say that there is an immense variety in the quality of


accommodation provided; certain of these camps of a semi-permanent nature provide a not unreasonable standard of accommodation. It is equally true that almost any of those camps afford the possibility of a better standard of living for people on the waiting lists of our local authorities than the conditions under which those people are living at the moment.
There is not a full appreciation in this House or in the country of the amount of human misery which those waiting lists of local authorities represent. There is an insufficient appreciation of the steady grinding misery of life in grossly overcrowded houses, shared with other families with all the possibilities of friction, ill-feeling and ill-temper which those circumstances breed and generate. There are many people, particularly young married couples, who would prefer almost any sort of accommodation of their own to living with two or three other families in some overcrowded house. My hon. Friend speaks with full experience of the problems of young married couples, but even detaching oneself from such bias as he may have shown on that subject, it is true that they would welcome almost any standard of accommodation which they could have on their own.
I hope whoever replies will give some indication that the Government realise that this is a matter which has to be dealt with by more drastic and forceful measures than we have seen so far. My hon. Friend has said rightly, and I propose to follow him, that it would not be expedient to discuss tonight the reasons why this state of affairs has come about. There will be other occasions to discuss that, and many of us have very strong feelings on the matter. The House can be united in accepting the facts of the situation, which cause more misery to more people in this country than any other single factor. I hope, therefore, that we shall hear from the Treasury Bench, not the usual Departmental answer—I say that without intending any discourtesy—but something which shows a fuller appreciation than we have previously had of the urgency of this matter.
I hope we shall hear that there is to be a reversal of the tendency we have had so far to discourage the use of these camps, the tendency to use them for almost any other purpose than housing,

to use them, as the Minister of Works knows full well, in one case, for the housing of the Olympic Games athletes, and for the purposes of Government Departments. I hope we shall hear that far more attention will be given to the far more important claims of the people who are waiting for living accommodation. I hope we shall not be told that there are technical difficulties. If we are told that, I shall be tempted to reply that it is a mark of a Minister's capacity and ability to get round and over technical difficulties. He is equipped with a technical staff with considerable skill and experience, and if they believe that they have behind them a Minister determined to do the sort of job Lord Beaverbrook did at the Ministry of Aircraft Production during the war, they will prove surprisingly capable of tackling the problem, as he and his staff did; but if they feel that the right hon. Gentleman is a Minister prepared to listen to their arguments on technicalities, we shall probably drift on in that calm, placid, inept way which has been so characteristic of the past two and a half years.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Is the hon. Member suggesting to the House that the bulk of these huts would be welcomed as dwelling places for the homeless in this country? If he is, all I can tell him is that in their present condition thousands of people would turn them down flat, if they were offered such accommodation.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Member is, of course, generalising. It is true that there are many huts in the condition he has described, but there are a great many others——

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Where?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I will quote one example of a camp I have inspected, whose use I have already urged unsuccessfully on the Minister of Works for housing purposes, and that is the camp in Richmond Park, which people have inspected and expressed their wish to inhabit. I concede that in the vast number of camps which cover our countryside there are many beyond use, but there are others in a medium condition to which people would prefer to go, as compared with their present conditions of living. There are others, a minority perhaps but sufficient in size to provide housing accommodation for many


thousands of people, which are in excellent condition, and which have been, and are being, properly cared for now——

Mr. Guy: Is it suggested that these huts should contain one or more families?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That must depend on the camp. In some huts there would be one family, and in others there would have to be a semi-communal system. There is infinite variety. I am protesting against the apparent lack of any firm will, on the part of the Department concerned, to make any concerted use of any, substantial number of these camps. I fully appreciate the practical difficulties—anyone who has lived in such camps for a number of years, as I have, would have no doubt about this point—but let us put these camps to the test. Make them freely available to the people on the waiting lists. Leave the choice to them. Do not let us assume that they would not use them.
People in my constituency, in the case I tested, and in which I got a clear and emphatic expression of opinion, would have regarded a change from their present conditions to the camp in Richmond Park as a change to what the hon. Member for West Fife called a paradise. If any Member is in doubt the matter can be resolved between us by putting it to the proof, and giving these people the chance of occupying these camps. I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary for an encouraging answer, indicating that the Ministry will do something. I appeal to Ministers opposite to go back to their desks tomorrow morning and show themselves to be Ministers whose administrative capacity is being put to a good cause, a cause in which, if they succeed, they will earn the thanks of many unfortunate people in the country, regardless of party.

8.48 P.m.

Mr. Watkins: It is fitting that a Welshman should follow a Scotsman and an Englishman in this Debate, and I am sure that we are all grateful to the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) for raising a matter to which I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will reply, not from his brief, but from his heart. I am not so much enamoured of people living in these huts. I suggest that many houses which are

used by Government Departments at the moment should be released by the Ministry of Works, so that people without homes can be accommodated. I am sure that if there was a survey taken in Wales a large number of huts could be found and used. Some of the huts I have visited recently have contained nothing but dead sheep. In Brecon and Radnor there are many huts not being used by any Ministry.
The question I would like answered is this: Who has the responsibility of maintaining a hutted camp, such as there is in my neighbourhood? I find that one of my own rural district councils, when they make a complaint, have to send a letter to the Welsh Board of Health and also to the Regional Officer of the Ministry of Works. From neither do they get a satisfactory reply. When I had occasion recently to visit the site of the hutted camp in Gilwern, in Breconshire, I found that the sanitary conditions were shocking and deplorable, because no attention had been given to the complaints sent to either of these Ministries. I ask for the sake of public health that they should, instead of the rural district council, take more interest in the maintenance of that camp. I am referring to the lavatories and also to the wastage of water which has been reported. Nothing has been clone about that. With regard to electricity, although a complaint has been made to the Ministry of Fuel and Power, the Ministry of Works, and the Welsh Board of Health there are single switches operating three lamps and for 12 months light has been wasted. If something is not done about that within the next seven days, I hope to be lucky in the ballot, so that I can raise the matter on the Adjournment. I also hope that I shall get support from hon. Members opposite as I am supporting them tonight.
I suggest that the points raised by the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) are worthy of a full reply, particularly the one with regard to the removal of camps. I have in my constituency a camp where 37 families came from the district of Ebbw Vale, and if the huts could be moved nearer that district, it would be a much better proposition. I suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary should, if he cannot do anything else, send an inspector at once to examine the camp to which I have referred tonight.

8.52 p.m.

Mr. Spence: I want to raise a minor issue on this topic, which will not take long. I am struck by the complete unanimity in the House on the urgency of this question. The point to which I wish to draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary is the responsibility of the Government for maintaining in habitable condition those huts for which they charge rent. Instances arise in my own home town in Scotland, which is outside the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Secretary here tonight, but I hope that he will make representations to his right hon. Friend in the Scottish Office on what I have to say. The position prevailing there is that huts are let at a rent of 10s. a week. No rates are charged, and light is provided free. These huts are not habitable, but I believe that they could be made habitable, if a small amount were spent on their repair.
About 10 days ago, I put a Question to the Secretary of State for Scotland asking whether he was aware of the conditions. He said that if I made recommendations, he would see what could be done. I submit that it is not my responsibility to make recommendations for the repair of huts for which his Department is receiving rent. I suggest very definitely that a surveyor should be sent to view these huts to make sure that at least they are weather-tight for the winter. In the main, the huts are of the Nissen type. The iron is in a bad condition and, surely, something could be done to get big truck tarpaulins, which one sees advertised every week in the farming papers, for covering stacks, so that the huts could be made waterproof and there could be a few dry places in which to put beds.
There is the question of the sanitary arrangements in these camps, and I support what has been said. The camps were built under the stress of war and in conditions of emergency and the sanitary accommodation was rather rough. In these particular cases much is to be desired in the conditions under which these people live. We realise that there is a shortage of housing. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, who is to reply tonight, has been impressed by the strength of the arguments and the unanimity on all sides. I

appeal to him to see that where the huts are provided no money shall be spared, within reason, in making them watertight and habitable, because the greatest discomfort and even injury to the health of the people can occur through these conditions.

8.56 p.m.

Mr. George Thomas: The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) has rendered a public service, in my opinion, by raising this question tonight, but I trust we shall deal with it dispassionately, because since this is such a very human problem there is a tendency for us to follow the advice of my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins) and allow our hearts to run away with our heads. I believe that this House has rarely discussed a problem in which the people are more interested than this of homes for the people. If there is any subject which is full of dynamite for politicians at the present time it is housing, but what is far more important is the fact that under the stress of present conditions family life is being menaced. It is being broken down in many instances, and if the relief which the hon. Member for Huntingdon suggests will in any appreciable measure relieve this problem, then I am sure that all parts of the House would welcome it.
The hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) has uttered a word of caution arising from knowledge that he has of the scarcity of these huts for other purposes. I would draw the attention of the House to the fact that at the present time we have young married people, such as were referred to by the hon. Member for Huntingdon, who are actually living apart. In my constituency at Central Cardiff we had, in 1939—for this is no new problem—over 10,000 families on the waiting list for a house, and hon. Members opposite will forgive me for making the point that in those days labour was cheap and materials plentiful, but my people, and people in many parts of this country, had to live in slums and under shocking conditions. It is no new problem, but it has been accentuated as a result of bombing and of those dreadful war years when building could not be proceeded with. We have a legacy from other days, but that does not take away from right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench the responsibility for the drive


that is necessay to solve this problem and the use of these huts if any of them are available.
On Monday last in my office at Cardiff —and I try to meet my constituents every Monday—a young man came to see me. He was just out of the R.A.F., and his wife had a baby 11 weeks old. She has to sleep on the sofa and the baby in the pram, whilst his brother and wife and their baby occupy the bed in the same room. This young man has had to sleep out on the floor in another place. Every hon. Member could give instances of that sort. It is causing human agony beyond description, and any way will be welcome so far as I am concerned——

Mr. Gallacher: Would not the hon. Member emphasise the fact that we get a husband with one child in one village and his young wife with another child in another village, each with their separate parents?

Mr. Thomas: Unfortunately I know from my experience that that is so. This Debate will have been exceedingly useful if it only serves to warn the Government Front Bench that we do not want any tinkering with or cutting down of the housing programme and that we have a grave responsibility for seeing that the programme has a high priority. Huts are not the final answer to this problem. Huts cannot be the answer. What we want are decent homes for our people. I am afraid, as the hon. Member for Huntingdon must be afraid, that there is a danger that when a family is put in a hut it will stay there year in and year out. It is like temporary school buildings—they are put up for us for five years and they are still here 20 or 30 years later being used as class rooms, as the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Works knows better than anybody. Even if these huts are used, they must not be used for a long period.
The hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) said that he did not want to debate the reasons for the present muddle. I have referred to them, but I think that the public are mindful that we have succeeded in giving real homes rather than huts to a very great proportion of people in this time of scarcity of materials and skilled labour. We are paying the price of the war, but if it is possible to bring some

thing of the drive which was shown in munitions in time of war into the problem of hut accommodation, I am sure the House will welcome it. I trust that this Debate will not raise false hopes in the breasts of any of our people that the huts which are near to them can be used. There is a natural tendency on the part of people to feel that a hut which looks all right on the outside will be good enough for them, because—as the hon. Member for West Fife said—anything will do for people to enable them to get out of their present misery if they are unhappy with the people in whose house they are living; but anything cannot be good enough for the Government. We must see that these places are made perfectly habitable if we are to allow the people to use them for their homes.

9.3 P.m.

Mr. Blyton: I have listened to what has been said about sub-let tenancies, and I would remind the House that this is no new problem. I was married in 1919 and I first got a house of my own in 1929. I had 10 years of sub-let tenancies in different places, and I know how children are not liked in other people's houses.

Mr. Renton: I do not know whether the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton) has been here throughout this discussion—

Mr. Blyton: Yes, I have.

Mr. Renton: It was not intended in the first place to be a discussion on the subject of sub-tenancies. Every speech so far has related to the question of the use of former Service huts. The hon. Member is, of course, entitled to discuss any matter he pleases, but I felt that he might have preferred to discuss what everybody else is discussing.

Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: Is that not left to the Chair?

Mr. Blyton: When I listened to the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) talking about the need for drive on the Front Bench, I thought it would have been better if there had been drive between 1919 and 1929 when so many ex-Service men were trying to get houses. I am not enamoured of camps. When all is said and done, a camp is an impossible housing condition for any


person, and once camps are established on this basis it will take years to get the people out. I remember that a camp was built at Birtley for the Belgians in the first world war and, when the Belgians disappeared in 1920, the people of Birtley went into those houses and it took the Durham County Council until 1932 to get shot of the wooden huts which were used as houses in Birtley during those inter-war years. I have some of the Army camps used in World War Two in my constituency, and I say frankly to my own Front Bench that there are some huts there from which it would be better to remove the people, because the huts are not habitable.
Because of the sanitary conditions, undoubtedly as time goes on those huts will create a huge epidemic problem in the heavily populated areas, but the local authorities, while not unmindful of the difficulties of the people in squatters' camps, have to face this problem: a local authority cannot say to a person who has gone into a squatters' camp where the conditions are not habitable or decent, "We will take you out of there and give you the first permanent house," because there are other people on the list who have not entered a camp, and therefore have priority to the first permanent house. There is no local authority who can clear these camps by allowing the people in them to jump the queues.
Therefore, we have to face the fact, unpleasant as it may seem, that unless we get these people housed and out of these camps, and alter entirely the policy of allowing our people to live in camps, we shall find as the years go by that we shall never get shot of the camps at all. It raises a huge problem, not only here but for the local authorities, and I for one, while recognising the existence of the camps, am not prepared to encourage them as the standard housing conditions of working-class people. I believe this Parliament ought to press not for Nissen huts, not for fireplaces being taken out of unused huts and put into some other hut housing a family, but to concentrate on the Government giving sufficient capital to build decent houses and so wipe out the camps.
There may be differences of opinion about this, but I believe that the Minister of Health is doing a good job and that his

record will compare most favourably with the Opposition's record after the first world war. Wooden huts were still in existence for working-class people long after the war had ended, and when we pleaded with a Conservative Government to abolish those at Birtley, we had no response. While asking the Minister to make habitable some of these occupied huts, it would be' wrong and foolish for it to go out from this House that we are encouraging people to go into huts when their rightful habitations should be proper homes.

9.10 p.m.

Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: I am glad that this question has been raised because, as in many other parts of the country, this problem occurs in my constituency by the acquisition, or conquest, whichever term one wishes to apply, by squatters of certain Army camps containing Nissen huts. It has created a problem for me of having to raise the question of the condition of these huts with the Minister of Health. It is clear from any examination of the circumstances of such huts in camps scattered over the country that in the great majority of cases they are entirely unfit for permanent habitation. They are not houses; they are disused Army huts. The urgency of the housing problem all over the country is underlined by the fact that hundreds of families have thought them fit, necessary and preferable to their present living conditions and have even taken over these places by force. They have marched in and established occupation.
When such circumstances arose, the War Department were faced with a problem which is not easy of solution. Families have gone into these places, entirely unsuitable as far as any decent standard of comfortable accommodation is concerned, lacking sanitary facilities, with insufficient water service, and the absence of almost all the amenities which go to make reasonable accommodation. The families who have taken over these places cannot be put out on to the road. They have come from places where, as mentioned by other hon. Members, conditions had become absolutely intolerable. The intolerable nature of these conditions is, as I say, underlined by the fact that these people have seen fit to go into camps, and to occupy them.
The problem has to be dealt with as a fait accompli. We cannot put these people out as there is nowhere else for them to go. We have to face the fact that they are there, and reconcile ourselves to the fact that we have to make their conditions reasonably comfortable, and safe from a sanitary point of view. In the particular case raised from my constituency, it appears that the War Department, faced with the problem, were not prepared to accept it as a housing problem. They thought, probably quite rightly, that their field of activity was preparation for war, and the defence of the country generally, and not the provision of housing accommodation But they appear to have reached a bargain with the Ministry of Health, because I understand from the honorary secretary of the Roden Squatters' Tenants' Committee that these huts have been taken over by the Ministry of Health from the War Department. As the Member of Parliament for that area, I have received representations on behalf of the squatters to put their case for some attention to be given by the Ministry of Health to the condition of these camps. I have written to the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry, and presumably the matter is being looked into.
I do not suggest that this is a matter which is easy of solution. These places were obviously not built for family accommodation, but having taken them over, the Government have a responsibility to discharge—to see that these people are made as comfortable as it is possible to make them in these places. I remember reading in the local Press, when this invasion took place, that there was some attempt at forcible prevention of entry, but the invaders won the day. They established themselves, and the huts having now been transferred to the Ministry of Health, they have actually become the tenants of the Minister, and presumably they are paying a rent, and, therefore, the Minister has accepted the responsibilities of a landlord. Those responsibilities must be discharged, as far as possible.
The huts are in a very bad condition. Some of them are better than others. I have seen some photographs of the internal set-up of some of the huts. They appear to be in the nature of one big room, with certain services, such as water, in the corner, with gas, perhaps, laid on,

but no really up-to-date facilities and amenities. The room is just one family living room, and in order to secure the minimum of privacy for the members of the family when they retire at night, they have had to hang up curtains, which are drawn at the end of the day to enable the family to settle down to rest. There are families with growing children of both sexes aged 15, 16, 17 and 18, and those conditions create a grave human problem, not merely from the point of view of the actual accommodation, but from the point of view of the whole circumstances of life, of dozens of families in the case I am quoting, where there are the mother and father and children ranging over all ages.
I appeal to the Minister, as other Members have done, to see that where the Ministry has taken over the responsibility for these places, it should do its utmost to make them reasonably habitable. Having accepted the circumstances of being a landlord, the Ministry must accept the responsibilities of a landlord, and I am sure that if some effort is made it will be found possible to make these huts far more habitable than they are. I do not know how long families will have to stay in these places, it may be 12 months, five years, 10 years, 15 years. The problem will only be solved as and when decent houses are built to which these people can be transferred. As long as people remain in these places, they should be made as comfortable and happy as it is possible to make them. I hope the Minister will give a considered reply to the points which I have raised.

9.20 p.m.

Mr. Gibson: There was one point made by the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) upon which we are all agreed. It is that the problem is a serious one and that the suffering caused in thousands of families through housing difficulties is as great as ever it has been. Some of us hear horrifying stories when we meet our constituents week by week. I am not satisfied that it would be any solution to this problem to use these huts. I have seen some which are being used. In London we are still pestered with some which were occupied during the first world war. Both in Woolwich and Bexley there are huts which were condemned before the war, but which are still occupied because


of the difficulty of finding permanent accommodation for the people.
I fear that the more we use ex-Army huts to house families, the more difficult we shall make the problem of getting people out of such accommodation into decent surroundings. They will tend to become satisfied with their circumstances. On the other hand, so difficult and hard is the situation, that if it is possible to provide satisfactory accommodation with all the internal fittings which a reasonably decent home ought to have, and where people will be able to live a normal life, nobody will object. But it is a bad policy to put people in the middle of a huge aerodrome because a hut happens to be there with water laid on. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Works knows that some of us could find a good use for these huts. As chairman of the London County Council Housing Committee, I would like to take over one or two of them in order to house building trade workers who are building permanent homes. However, so far we have not been able to get any of them.
We need to be cautious in the use of these huts for living accommodation. It may be that there is a case for using the huts in Richmond Park where the circumstances might be different. They are close to a densely populated district with plenty of shopping and entertainment facilities. I am not at all sure that the same applies in the case of the aerodromes in the Eastern and Southern counties that I have visited. The policy has been that local authorities should be responsible for building. I was interested to see what the local authorities in the constituency of the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) had done, and also what had been done in Kingston. Two and a half years have passed since the end of the war, and we have had adequate opportunity to make a drive to build permanent homes or temporary houses. Kingston has produced 63 in two and a half years.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Will the hon. Member allow me? Is he aware, in making that point, that in November, 1945, the party of which he is a Member attained a majority on that council?

Mr. Gibson: .Well, so much the worse for them; they built only 63. There have been 203 houses built by the Ministry of

Works, and private enterprise has built 25, while, in Huntingdonshire, 220 permanent houses have been built and 80 temporary houses.

Mr. Renton: With great respect to the hon. Member, would he say up to what date those figures refer. I have seen later housing returns than that, and I am sure that the figures for both are much bigger than those he has given. I mean figures published about three weeks ago.

Mr. Gibson: These figures come from the Housing Return of October 31, the very latest figures that hon. Members can get. The only point which I want to make is that, if we are going to complain about the Ministry of Health or the Ministry of Works not doing this, that or the other, let us kick our local authorities into doing more than they have done.

Mr. Renton: Is the hon. Member suggesting that it is part of the functions of a Member of Parliament to kick local authorities, when they have their democratically-elected representatives, and when there is a general supervision exercised over them by Government Departments?

Mr. Gibson: It is for each hon. Member to determine in his own mind how to tackle the problem. I know what I would say if the borough which I represent complained that the Government were doing nothing and if I found that they had done nothing themselves. I cannot help comparing the figures in this Return with what has been done, for instance, by the Borough of Woolwich, which has built 192 permanent houses and rebuilt 108 war-destroyed dwellings, and with what has been done in Greenwich, where they have built 132 permanent houses and rebuilt 10 war-destroyed houses, and a large number of temporaries in addition.
The hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames gave a little lecture to Ministers about being Ministers and insisting on carrying out their functions properly, but it seems to me a little bit unfair to do that when we can see that the local authorities of the constituencies which we represent have not, on the face of it, been doing all that they ought to have done.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As the hon. Gentleman has repeated that charge with particular reference to myself, may I say


that it is no part of my duty to defend the doings of my local council when it is controlled by people with whom I disagree, but, in fairness to them, it is surely right to point out that they recently, and for some time, in fact, have been refused by the Minister any authority whatever to issue any licences for building. In these circumstances, it ill becomes the hon. Member to taunt them for their lack of progress.

Mr. Gibson: There have been quite a number of permits given, because private enterprise has, in fact, completed 25 houses in Kingston. However, the point I want to make is that the use of huts may, in an extreme emergency, be a useful proposition, but if it is going to have the effect of making people think that it will in any way ease the terrific housing problem, then it is wrong, and we ought not to give it the slightest encouragement. We have got to insist that, so terrific is the problem of housing in this country, whatever else we may go short of, we must not go short of building new houses.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. James Hudson: I hope this question of hutments will not be taken as an opportunity for an attack on the Government in the way in which some hon. Members opposite have sought to use it. As a matter of fact, to take my own constituency as an example, the entry into hutments has not only been decided by the squatters who entered in the first place, but it was decided by the desire of the local council, which was almost frantic because of the difficulties arising from the general shortage of houses.
In my Division, although the accomplishments of the local council are excellent compared with those of other councils, there are still 12,000 persons on the books applying for houses, despite all that has been done. In its desire to get on with anything that offered, the local council not merely agreed to the squatters invading the huts, but made available a considerable number of huts for people who were simply taking the law into their own hands. The council asked me to accompany a deputation to my hon. Friend, the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, to ask for a considerable sum of money to be spent upon improving the huts which had been taken over. The sum involved was only

a flea-bite. It was something between £150 and £250 a hut. There were to be bathrooms put in, hot and cold water, and all sorts of improvements which, I agree, ought to be in houses, besides the general improvement of the site outside.
At that time, the people were wandering about in the mud, during a terrible winter, in an effort to collect water from pipes in a field sometimes 200 or 300 yards away from the huts. In very hard weather, women with child were carrying water under those conditions. We protested, and the council wanted the money to be spent. The case put by the Minister of Health was that it would be better, instead of drawing building materials and labour for that purpose, to get on with the housing scheme. The Minister said that, in some cases, the huts were on the sites which would be used for building permanent houses, and that it would be better to get on with the job of providing the permanent houses instead of spending considerable sums of money on utterly unsatisfactory huts. The local council have got on with the job. I am not prepared to blame the Government for their part in these proceedings. They have been facing a very difficult problem, and, up to the present, they have done the best they can.
There is not only the question of huts involved. In my division, there is a terrible place which goes under the name —it is almost blasphemy to use the name —of the "Good Shepherd Hall." Last Friday night, a woman came to me to say how she, her husband, a baby which was born in hospital three weeks ago, and another child of 14 months, were living in one miserable little room in this "Good Shepherd Hall." She was breaking her heart about the situation, and wanted something to be done about it. But I know that if they were put into decent conditions, such as are accorded to people in, say, temporary houses, they would probably be out of their turn as compared with the many other families in my division who are seeking housing accommodation. In the same way, if the Good Shepherd Hall was improved, it would not necessarily be improved for the people there at present; it would only be improved for people who have even a better claim to such decent accommodation as we can provide.
That is the sort of problem which we ought to take into consideration when complaints are made. I admit that these things are bad, but I do not try to apportion blame to the Government. Every hon. Member who has spoken from these benches has been right when telling the Government that, despite the international situation—dollars, timber, and the rest—we cannot afford, whatever else we do, the cuts contemplated at the present time regarding permanent houses.
A statement was made on behalf of the Ministry of Health that new houses in London are to be provided only at the rate of 300 a month, instead of an average of 2,000 a month. This was in reply to a deputation, when I was present, and we were assured that that was the rule now being adopted in London, because of the stringent difficulties with which we are faced. If that is the procedure to be adopted, and if it continues for long, there will be a revolutionary situation in the London area—and also in my area. We are not prepared, in any sort of national stringency, with the 12,000 people who are on the waiting list, to see such a cutting down in the housing programme as is contemplated in these figures. I would even say that the figure of 140,000 houses for 1949, in place of the 260,000, represents a figure altogether too low in view of the situation facing us. It is only when I face the future that I say any word of complaint about the action of the Government. Up to the present they have done extremely well in a bad situation.

9.37 P.m.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: I want to endorse and underline the commonsense which has been uttered by my hon. Friend the Member for Kennington (Mr. Gibson). These huts are no solution whatever to the housing problem. I appreciate the generous sentiments lying behind the speech of the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) but I would say that in 90 cases out of 100 they are utterly unsuitable for human habitation. In most cases they are hardly fit to house either pigs or hens. A point which, to my mind, is very important is that they are cluttering up the landscape, and spoiling the natural amenities from one end of the country to the other. Taking the Orkney Islands as an example, literally

hundreds of these derelict huts are still there, and for those who like the beauty of Northern Scotland in general and those Islands in particular, it is a shocking picture which greets the holiday visitor in these days.
Where the huts are usable they are most suitable for various welfare activities. In my constituency of Bedford I have had the Sea Scouts asking me to help them to secure local headquarters in which they can hold darts matches and have lectures and so on. In my judgment these huts are more suitable for that sort of use than for living in. I cannot agree with the hon. Member who said they were often fitted up with amenities such as wash basins, lavatories and sanitation. That is not the case. I think we must have some sense of proportion in considering this matter. It would be fatal if it went out to the country tonight from this House that there were a lot of habitable huts which people could secure merely by badgering their local authorities or their Member of Parliament. I want myself to inject this amount of common sense into the Debate and to stress that we must keep a balanced outlook in discussing this matter.

9.40 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Kingsmill: In my own constituency there are several camps which have been taken over by squatters. They are all Nissen huts, and they have been converted by the people who took them over. They have been converted extremely well, and they have made extremely good temporary houses. When the time comes, as we all hope it will come very soon, for permanent houses to replace those temporary huts, it will be a very good thing; but in the meantime when, so far as I can make out, only cow houses can be reconstructed and labourers' cottages cannot, it would be wrong to turn anybody out from any form of waterproof protection, which is what a Nissen hut is. If the Minister has no alternative suggestion for better accommodation to a Nissen hut which is converted by the people who take it over, with or without his authority—and in most cases it is without—and who have made a comfortable and warm home with suitable sanitation, it would be far better to let them stay there than to turn them out or prevent other people from doing likewise.

9.41 p.m.

Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: The impressive feature about this Debate has been, despite superficial differences, the consensus of agreement. Before the Minister replies, I would like to put to him principles which I suggest have emerged from this Debate. In the course of the Debate there have been differences, but I believe that on an analysis of the speeches it will be found they are differences of emphasis rather than any fundamental difference of policy. First, I suggest that camps should be made available for human habitation wherever possible. I appreciate at once that those words "wherever possible" beg the question, but I will deal with that. I cannot accept the suggestion that when there is an issue between amenities and human habitation, amenities should have any consideration at all. The second principle involved is that the Ministry should approach this problem from the point of view of the occupants. That is to say, they should not have in mind, as any Administration is apt to have, the ideal standard of housing, but should consider the alternatives between the habitation which these huts provide and the habitation to which many people are condemned if they do not have the huts.
The third principle is that once huts have been handed over for habitation, they should be kept fit for habitation until alternative permanent accommodation is available. The fourth point which would inevitably follow, if the Ministry adopts these principles, is that in letting people go into these huts due regard should be had to the local authorities' priorities. It is no condemnation of using huts that as things are now that squatters go in and jump their claims, because if the Ministry and the local authorities adopted a definite policy of making huts available, the whole matter could be properly regulated and people could be put into the huts with due regard to their priorities.

Mr. Gallacher: Would the hon. and learned Member excuse me if I point to a principle I think has been forgotten. In view of the fact that we are dealing with very important principles, does he not think it desirable that it should he noted that any person going into a hut should not lose his priority position for a permanent or temporary house?

Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: Certainly. I am very much obliged to my hon. Friend.
I would like to illustrate these principles by referring to an occurrence in my own constituency. Some huts which had been occupied became vacant and were condemned to destruction. The Ministry was going to send in demolishers to dispose of them. Squatters jumped the claim, occupied the huts and are still there. The matter was taken up with the Welsh Board of Health and the Ministry. May I say at once that both the Welsh Board of Health and the Ministry gave every consideration, the matter was dealt with in a most human and expeditious way, the squatters were allowed to stay there, the demolitions were stopped and the Ministry and the Welsh Board of Health have been most helpful ever since.
The point I am making is this: if the policy were, in fact, laid down in accordance with the principles I suggest, there would never have been occasion for the squatters having to go in in order to prevent that camp from being destroyed. I am urging, and other hon. Members have been urging, that these principles should be recognised as part of the day-to-day regular curriculum laid down by the Minister and should not be considered only when some local occurrence is brought to the notice of the Minister. I do hope the Minister will extract from this Debate those principles which are constructive and will not pay too much attention to differences of opinion which have been merely superficial.

9.47 P.m.

Mr. E. P. Smith: I think it is fair to say in this connection that we all know huts differ and that some are better than others. I think, too, it would generally be true to say that even a bad hut is better than no accommodation at all and is certainly better than six or seven persons living together in one room —conditions with which I have been familiar in some instances in my constituency. I remember a case in the town of Ashford where there was a largish house, which had been in the occupation of the Inland Revenue. It had a table in it—I think for about nine months—and nothing else, and it was invaded by four families of squatters. At that time the Treasury transferred it to the Ministry of Agriculture to be converted into a hostel


for drivers who conveyed prisoners of war to and from their labour in the field. The moment these squatters occupied it, the local authorities, apparently quite properly, cut off the electric light and the water, while the local fuel overseer would not allocate them any fuel. One night a baby was born in that house, without water, without electric light and with only a few sticks burning in the grate. Happily, the delivery was successful; the mother and child were taken to hospital and, I believe, everything went well.
As regards the people who were left in the house, whom I have been to see several times, they asked me for my advice—and though I do not know whether I ought to state this—I suggested to them that there was a camp of hutments not very far distant which might conceivably be used. They migrated there, and I believe they have been happy there and nave made themselves very nice-homes in every sense. I do, however, feel absolutely appalled at the prospect of cutting down the building of permanent houses. I know that it is said that that is due to the inevitable reduction of capital expenditure. I would suggest to Ministers that permanent houses are really a form of capital investment and not capital expenditure; and that we cannot expect to get the volume of production we want in this country if men and women are living under conditions which are very unsatisfactory and very unhappy, if they are living in houses which they cannot by any stretch of the imagination call homes, and in which they cannot be comfortable or lead a normal and healthy home life.

9.51 p.m.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I would not have intervened in this Debate but for two things. The first is that in my own Division there is a great number of hutted camps which, perhaps because of topography, are in very isolated positions. The second reason is that when I came into this House tonight I found a subject of this magnitude and this importance being reduced to a purely political level. I was horrified to find an hon. Member trying to say that conditions in the Borough of Woolwich were such as to enable him to secure some local success

in the local paper at the expense of the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton). I do think that if we are going to discuss a subject of this importance from a constituency level——

Mr. Gibson: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is quite mistaken. I do not come from Woolwich. I do not represent Woolwich in this House.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I did not say that. Had the hon. Member listened to what I said he would have understood that all that I said was, that it was apparent that his speech was purely designed, for one reason or another—far be it from me to judge what the reason was—to advance a particular case against the general case put from this side of the House. All I would say is that, if, when we are discussing so very difficult and very grave a problem, we are going to reduce the thing to a matter of making pros and cons for one particular borough or another, then we are going to fail in our job.

Mr. George Thomas: Mr. George Thomas rose—

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: No. Let me finish my sentence. I would say this to the hon. Member—that I have learned from the latest housing return that the borough that he quoted has a population of 151,000 and has completed 192 houses, whereas in the case of the hon. Member for Huntingdon the county has a population of 157,000 and has completed 224 houses. Therefore, there could be no greater condemnation of the argument he was trying to make than the figures he dared to quote.

Mr. Gibson: I quoted Woolwich. Woolwich built 192 permanent houses, 108 rebuilds, and 893 temporaries. That is a total of 1,192, not 192. Even as far as the Kingston-upon-Thames figures are concerned——

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I did not say that.

Mr. Gibson: Even as far as the Kingston-upon-Thames figures are concerned the hon. and gallant Member was wrong, because they built 63, and 202 temporaries, which does not give the figure he quoted.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has not quoted those figures yet.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Perhaps I might be allowed to take part in this argument. As I understood the hon. Member for Kennington, the whole point of his speech was that we desire permanent houses—with which I am in full agreement—and he was saying that nothing should stand in the way of permanent housing.

Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: No, no.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: The figures I have given are based entirely on permanent houses. If he now wishes to alter the whole argument which he made, I am prepared to accept that. If he does not wish to, then the figures I have given represent a true proportion on what he strove to achieve in his speech, and what, in fact, has been achieved by the bodies he quoted. No doubt, the OFFICIAL REPORT will show which of us is right.
Again, I was rather horrified by the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Llandaff and Barry (Mr. Ungoed Thomas), who made the proposition—he will correct me if I am wrong—that housing, even in temporary camps, comes before amenities. That was his primary proposition.

Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: I do not want my speech misrepresented in the same fashion as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Kennington (Mr. Gibson). If the hon. and gallant Member had listened carefully to my speech he would have heard me say that camps should be used for housing rather than done away with merely because they are a blot on the landscape.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I do not think I have said anything different. If the hon. and learned Member wishes to quarrel with me, I must accept his statement. Surely, the position is more grave than that. We have a great many camps in the New Forest; and I did start by acknowledging that I came from the New Forest which is, above all, one of the places where amenities and camps are bound to clash. When we consider this question, I do ask that we should do so not in the sense proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Llandaff and Barry, but in the widest sense. If we are to use these camps temporarily, then we must try to produce the amenities which go with accommodation in such temporary

structures. That is where the Government have fallen down completely. They are perfectly willing to allow local authorities to take possession of camp A or camp B, irrespective of where it may be or what facilities it may provide for the temporary housing of local population.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Nonsense.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: The hon. Member says, "Nonsense."

Mr. G. Thomas: So it is.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: The hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeffington-Lodge) comes from a very densely populated area, where the archdeacon has received a number of copies of a particular prayer, which shows how efficient the local services are.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: On a point of Order. Is not the point made by the hon. and gallant Member utterly irrelevant to this Debate; and is he allowed to introduce irrelevancies about the Archdeacon of Bedford?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeffington-Lodge) must remember that in an Adjournment Debate anything is in Order unless it involves legislation.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I apologise, Mr. Speaker, for that departure from the subject. In the New Forest we have quite a number of camps which are very isolated and are divorced from normal amenities, which I think I am fair in saying most hon. Members have in the case of camps in their areas which may be used temporarily for the purpose of accommodating people.

Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: The hon. and gallant Member has taken precisely the course I anticipated he would take. He attacked me on the question of amenities, and I expected him then to go on to deal with amenities in the camps. That is precisely what he has done. I was not attacking amenities in the camps. What I was attacking was the suggestion that camps should be done away with where they were a blot on the landscape and interfered with other people's amenities, and I said that such amenities should not stand against the need for housing accommodation.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: That is quite true; I am in complete agreement with the


hon. and learned Member there. Perhaps if he visited the New Forest he would see that the attack which I made upon his argument is perfectly logical with the argument I am now putting forward.

It being Ten o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Popplewell.]

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: If the hon. Member would visit my constituency, he would understand the argument on which I have tried to base it. If he has not been there, I wish he would come as soon as possible.

Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: What is the argument the hon. and gallant Member is making?

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: The argument I made in my speech. Perhaps the hon. and learned Member has not followed it, in which case I can only regret that I have not made myself clear. Let us not complicate the issue. The hon. Member attacked me for one particular thing I said. If he has not followed, let him come and see himself.

Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: It is not clear to anybody yet.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: The hon. and learned Member must not judge from his own intelligence that of other hon. Members in the House. I would ask particularly in regard to amenities in isolated rural areas, for the provision of special facilities. I have various arguments going on with the various Ministries at the moment, but it is quite apparent that these Ministries responsible for the taking over of camps in isolated areas for the benefit of local communities have not the same responsibility as the Minister responsible who is to reply tonight. We took over a camp in my division. The local authorities did their best to make it into something which would redound to the general benefit of the community, but the other Ministries will not do anything to implement that policy. Time and again we have been faced with that in the New Forest. It may be because it is Crown land, or for some other reason. We have hundreds of families living in isolated conditions, and no Ministry will do anything. I ask for some consideration where these

conditions exist. I do not believe my own constituency is alone in this matter. I hope that instructions will be given to every Government Department to do something, so that the amenities which other communities enjoy shall be enjoyed by these communities.

10.3 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. John Edwards): I anticipated that this Debate would be of a relatively narrow character, but it has turned out to be almost like a major Debate, with questions concerning almost every Department of the Government. It will be obvious that it is quite impossible for me to deal with the detailed cases which have been put to me, some of which are under consideration, and some of which I have heard today for the first time. I was urged by my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins) to speak from my heart, and the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) seemed to doubt whether we were aware of the misery of people living in grossly overcrowded homes. The House would be surprised if I were to speak from my heart, or if I allowed one-quarter of my ancestry, which is Welsh, really to come to the top.
I do not need any exhortations from either side of the House, because I know, I served my apprenticeship in the City of Leeds, which had something like 80,000 back-to-back houses, 35,000 of the worst type—one up and one down—and 60 or 70 to the acre. I know a little more than that. I took part in the biggest municipal housing drive that this country has seen, and I was one of those responsible for the most thorough-going differential renting scheme Britain has ever seen. I wish I could put it on record that my political opponents of those days had helped in that work. If I may now stop talking from my heart, so to speak, and begin to go back to thinking with my head, I hope it will not be suggested that it is because my right hon. Friend, or the Minister of Works, or myself are indifferent to this human problem. In any event, even if I were likely to forget, my postbag of some 300 letters a week which I get from Members of the House would be a continuous reminder to me.
There has been some talk about housing in general, and the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mi. Renton) talked about the


postponement of housing except for key workers. I am sure he did not want to leave a false impression. There is a good deal of talk at the moment as though there had been a cut in housing in the sense that we were holding back in some way. I want to tell the House that whatever 1949 may hold we have more than enough work in hand, either on house-building or houses under contract, to keep us fully busy until well into 1949. The Government have gone on record, only in the last day or two, in the White Paper, as saying that they actually want to accelerate the rate at which houses are completed. But whatever 1949 may hold let us agree that what we are going to try to do now is to finish, as soon as possible, the 360,000 houses We have in hand.

Mr. Renton: As the hon. Member has specifically referred to me, may I quote a passage from "The Times" which I have not seen disputed by the Government? On 4th December "The Times,"propos the 1949 period, said:
Only 18 months ago, it is true, the Government were still dreaming of reaching a rate of over 400,000 new permanent houses per year by the middle of 1949, whereas their present aim for 1949 is no higher than 140,000.
I hope, therefore, that I may be excused having used the word "postponement," which, I hoped, was a kind word.

Mr. Edwards: If the hon. Member will read the White Paper he will see that he is wrong and that "The Times" is also wrong in this respect. In any event, it is not proper for me to try to enlarge on this now as I want to deal more specifically with the points which have been put to me in the Debate. I must say that I do not much like these huts for the most part, and that there is a certain irony in the fact that at the very time when we are building houses of a better standard than before, and considerably better houses than those which are being built in any part of Europe, we have to have recourse, because of urgent necessity for accommodation, to what is admittedly sub-standard accommodation. I think we are all agreed about that, but I hope that nobody thinks that because of that irony we have to lower the standards of the houses we are building.
Certainly, I would defend to the last ditch the building of high quality houses which will stand the judgment of time.
But we have to use these huts. I agree with what the hon. Member for Huntingdon said about the use of the circular. He commended it, and said that we should use it to the full. I agree, but I am not in agreement with the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames, who suggested that the Ministry of Health discouraged—that was the word he used—local authorities from using these camps. The contrary is true. In every way we know, once a camp has been allocated for housing purposes, we do everything we can to encourage the local authority to take it over, or, if they will not do that, manage it on our behalf. The word "discourage" is not a word which I recognise as being in the vocabulary either of my right hon. Friend or anyone in his Department.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman appreciated the point which I had particularly in mind. That was that it was not enough for the Ministry of Health to encourage the use of a camp when it had been allotted. Their failure, in one particular case which I have mentioned, was to support the local authority in asking for the allocation of the camp.

Mr. Edwards: That was not what the hon. Gentleman said when he made his speech. I am glad to have the correction. In January, 1946, this circular was issued. It did not meet with a very enthusiastic reception, and it was not until the bursts of squatting in the summer that it really began to find much support from the local authorities. As a result, we now have a total of some 694 camps that have been taken over under the circular. We also have another 379 camps which are being managed on behalf of the Ministry by local authorities.

Mr. E. P. Smith: Are any of those in Kent?

Mr. Edwards: I cannot say without notice. That means that there are 1,073 camps in those two categories, which are being used for housing purposes. There is not an unlimited pool of accommodation here on which we can draw. If this Debate had taken place early in 1946, a good deal of what has been said would have been much more true. There is a limit, and when I have letters, as I have had from time to time, referring to the large numbers of huts about the country,


or when hon. Members leave the impression that there are vast numbers of huts available for housing, I do not know where they are.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In Richmond Pa.

Mr. Edwards: One swallow does not make a summer.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: One failure tells a story.

Mr. Edwards: When the hon. Gentleman can show failure to use the places for a long period, such cases I will admit as relevant, but to sling the case of Richmond Park across the Table in Debate is neither here nor there. If Richmond Park was not being used it would be a different matter.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It is empty at the moment.

Mr. Edwards: It is not empty at the moment. The hon. Gentleman is wrong, and if he will take the trouble to go there, he will find that it is not empty.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Will the hon. Gentleman accept this challenge? Will he make available to the local authority who have asked for it, such parts of that camp as are empty tonight?

Mr. Edwards: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the Government have a use for Richmond Park, and that one result of the use to which the Park will be put, will be the derequisitioning of other property, including houses, which hon. Members on the other side of the House have from time to time mentioned.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: When?

Mr. Edwards: The second thing that I have to say is that, even if the huts are seen to be empty, it must not be assumed that they are surplus. The Service Departments have vacated and do vacate camps, but they may be unable to give them up pending decisions on the allocation of troops, the strength of Forces, and so on. Moreover, when Service Departments declare that a camp is surplus, then the Ministry of Works has to consider whether that camp can be used by any other Civil Department, and, in general, to review the claims, and sometimes they are competitive claims. In considering the claims, the Ministry

of Works have regard to housing, because, as soon as a camp is declared redundant, the regional officer of the Ministry of Health passes that information to the local authority. Therefore, when my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works comes to consider the matter he has housing claims in front of him.
At the present time the Government have a tremendous need to find accommodation not only for their own ordinary purposes, but for actual living accommodation. In the next six months we shall have to find accommodation for getting on for 150,000 British workers, Poles, and European voluntary workers who are being put into industry, into mining and into agriculture. One must, I submit to the House in all seriousness, weigh up all the time very carefully how the accommodation should be used, and there will be a large number of circumstances where camps that are not really suitable for housing because of their situation may well, for example, be suitable for agricultural workers who may have to be moved by transport and the like.

Lieut.-Colonel Kingsmill: How does the hon. Gentleman suggest that housing, which is not useful for ordinary people, may be useful for agricultural workers? Is it that they do not need the usual amenities?

Mr. Edwards: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has no right to assume anything of the kind.

Lieut.-Colonel Kingsmill: That is what the hon. Gentleman said.

Mr. Edwards: It is not. What I said was that some camps were not situated so as to be convenient for housing purposes. I went on to say that that might not prevent a camp being suitable, for example, for housing agricultural workers who may have to go a considerable distance. I feel that the proposal of the hon. Member for Huntingdon comes down in the end to this, that there will be comparatively few camps for which no Government use can be found. I am now speaking of his suggestion for moving. We want to use them in some cases, but he says if we cannot use them we ought to try to dismantle them and remove them somewhere else.

Mr. Renton: Remove the fittings.

Mr. Edwards: Here it is a matter of what is practicable. The only type of hut which can be dismantled and re-erected, without disproportionate difficulty, is the timber hut. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Works tells me that there are none surplus at all. Several types are not easily dismantled and re-erected and, as has been pointed out by a number of hon. Members, even though the huts are excellent they are not always kept in the best of condition for one reason or another. If we take, for example, the Nissen hut, I made inquiries from the Service Department and they reckon that it would be necessary to dismantle or, as they say, cannibalise half a dozen to provide one good Nissen hut for dismantling and re-erecting. In the case of plaster hoard huts we can pretty well be sure it is a dead loss.
We have, therefore, to consider whether it is really worth while going to the expense of dismantling and re-erecting the only two kinds where we could do it—one the timber hut, of which we have not got a surplus and, secondly, the Nissen hut, to move one of which would involve a number. Also, we should have transport costs, the preparation of sites, the laying of foundations and all the civil engineering work. My own opinion—and I say this without any attempt to ride off on an easy keel—is that we should have to be very hard pressed indeed for material before we could really force the use of labour to such an extent as is there involved. Considering what we get at the end in the matter of lifetime of the hut—our experience of the huts in London is very interesting in this connection—I feel quite certain we have the right to dispose of the surplus huts as they stand, and in the last resort, when no other use can be found for them, of selling them maybe to the owner of the land or to someone else who can use them.
One point which was raised by the hon. Member for Huntingdon was that of the responsibility of the local authorities for the care of the huts and so on. I would ask him to believe that as far as we are able we encourage the local authorities. We advise them that if they get into any difficulties, our regional officers are at their disposal and ready to help in any way they can, but in the use of huts for housing purposes we have to remember that not only must the huts be available but we must have local authorities who

want to take them over and use them. Once the camps have been taken over by a local authority under Circular 20, 1946, they become part of the local authority's pool of housing accommodation and are managed in exactly the same way as the local authority's own houses. Some local authorities have, in fact, appointed special wardens to look after particular camps and to cope with the special problems that may arise there.
There has, however, been considerable reluctance on the part of a number of local authorities to assume responsibility for camps that have been occupied by squatters. At the time of the outbreak of squatting, the Government decided that families should not be evicted from camps unless the camps were required for Government purposes. A good number of camps occupied by squatters were subsequently declared redundant by Service Departments and became a housing responsibility. The local authorities concerned had to be persuaded that the problem rested with them as housing authorities and in some cases very much against their will, or at least against their first inclinations, they were persuaded to take the camps over in due course. I can understand their anxiety. In some cases, the squatters came from outside their district; in other cases, they had jumped the queue; and as everybody knows this causes very considerable local trouble. Most local authorities have now realised that the problem is not only one of housing but one of good local government, and they have either agreed to take over the camps occupied by the squatters or, as I said earlier, in some 379 cases, they have agreed to manage them on behalf of the Minister of Health.
This is the measure of the problem. In my submission, while it was true a couple of years ago that there were a lot of empty camps that could be used and while there may still be an occasional case—I am quite willing to look at any cases sent to me—I am satisfied that over the country as a whole there is very little surplus accommodation indeed. I am satisfied that the proposal to move or to dismantle and re-erect huts is not really a practicable one, and I believe that the local authorities are really doing their best to handle what is admittedly an extremely difficult problem.
We all know what this housing problem means. I had it put to me perhaps as


abruptly as it could be the other day when I went to open the two thousandth house at Hereford. After the ceremony I save a group of women talking and looking across the road at the house. I said to them, "You can have a look round," and one of the women at once turned to me and said, "It is not a look round we want; it is a house." We all feel that and know that, and certainly those of us who are in any way responsible for this are determined to provide as much accommodation as we can. We do not like huts, but as long as we have to use them, we shall use as many as we can and the ones we use we shall make as habitable as possible.

10.25 p.m.

Sir John Barlow: I have heard most of the speeches this evening and have paid careful attention to them. Housing is not a political subject in any way; it is far too serious for that. We all have this problem in our constituencies, and although I have listened to the explanation of the Parliamentary Secretary, I am not entirely satisfied with it. I do not feel the Government are making the best use of the available housing. I know perfectly well that this problem is full of difficulties from the point of view of the Government but, at the same time, we as Members from different parts of the country know that hutments of various quality are available.
We know that they are not as good as the housing which the Government or we would like for the people requiring homes so badly, but I am still convinced that the hutments available in different parts of the country are not used as well

as they should be, and the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary has not allayed my fears in any way. It is not housing of the highest quality, it is not housing of average quality, it is housing which will give people a temporary roof over their heads that is required. We know the value of a house for young couples at the present time, and not only young couples but people who have been in the Services and want to start on their own.
It is of vital importance that greater use should be made of these huts. We have been told that there are not any of the wood sectional huts available because they are required for other purposes, but I would suggest that many of those purposes are not nearly so necessary as are houses for the people and that the Parliamentary Secretary should review the purposes to which those sectional hutments have been allocated. When they become surplus to requirements of the moment, the hon. Gentleman told us, it is considered whether another Department requires them before they are made available for housing. In many cases far too long is taken over such consideration, and in some cases where other Departments actually take them, I suggest that the urgency is not nearly so great as for private housing. As I say, we see these hutments, which look reasonable if not good accommodation, all over the country and, as a temporary measure, I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will seek for far more of these hutments which I believe are really available.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine Minutes past Ten o'Clock.